BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Claire Ward be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Helen Jones be added to the Committee.— (Mr. McAvoy.)

Independent Review of Home Education

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 11 June 2009, of the Independent Review of Home Education.— (Mr. Heppell.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Minister of State was asked—

Human Tissue Legislation

Jo Swinson: If he will direct the Office for Life Sciences to review the arrangements for pharmaceutical and medical biotech businesses to access samples of human tissue.

David Lammy: The Human Tissue Authority is currently assessing the impact of human tissue legislation and regulation on tissue-based research. This is of course primarily a matter for the Department of Health.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but lack of access to human tissue samples is impeding research in the fight against cancer and other diseases. Most human tissue removed in surgeries is currently incinerated, but with patient consent it can be put to very good use. Will the Minister ask the Office for Life Sciences to look into creating a database to record what samples are available where across the country in order to help academics and biotech companies to achieve scientific breakthroughs?

David Lammy: The hon. Lady is right that bioscience is hugely important. For research on Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia, access to human tissue can mean real advances. The Office for Life Sciences is co-ordinating activity and I am pleased that the Department of Health is among the group of Departments represented. She will also be aware that in March this year the HTA announced a project to assess the impact of tissue legislation and regulation on tissue-based research.

Extremist Activity (University Campuses)

Andrew Rosindell: What recent assessment he has made of the levels of extremist activity on university campuses; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The assessment of the law enforcement agencies is that there is some extremist activity on a small number of campuses. Where it occurs it is serious, but the assessment is that it is not widespread. Following the issuing of guidance to universities on this matter last year, we continue to work with the higher education sector to help it to reduce the risk of extremist activity happening on its campuses and to protect the safety of students and staff.

Andrew Rosindell: According to the British high commission in Pakistan, half of those granted student visas go missing when they come to the United Kingdom. What discussions is the Minister having with universities and the authorities to ensure that that ends, and ends soon?

David Lammy: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a change to the visa regime, which means that so-called bogus colleges have largely been closed down over the past year. Now only 1,600 colleges have been granted a registration, compared with the 4,000 that we had previously. I am of course in regular discussion with my colleague in the Home Office, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Affairs Committee is also looking into the issue. My colleague in this Department and my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration will give evidence before it.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I gently suggest that his civil servants might be allowing him to become a little complacent. If he talks to Jewish students about the intimidation on campuses earlier this year, in which Islamist organisations fuelled by outsiders intimidated Jewish students, not allowing them to meet or make their case, he will learn that it was a grave and worrying moment. Will he meet a delegation from the Union of Jewish Students and the Community Security Trust to discuss these issues? We cannot allow the notion that there is no problem to gain ground.

David Lammy: I have already met the Union of Jewish Students and I have set up a group within the Department that includes representatives from the universities to discuss these issues. We will meet regularly to continue to make an assessment of the anti-Semitism that can exist on campuses and to do all the appropriate work to minimise those threats and those issues for Jewish students. That kind of xenophobia and racism have no place in the national life of this country.

Small Businesses

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to reduce the level of regulation on small businesses.

Ian Lucas: Since 2005, we have reduced the administrative burden on business by £1.9 billion and are on track to deliver our promise of a 25 per cent. reduction worth £3.4 billion by 2010. We plan to adopt new simplification targets for 2010 to 2015 which will address regulatory costs for all businesses, but especially small businesses.

Henry Bellingham: I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and promotion, which were well deserved. He has always taken an interest in small businesses. He will be aware that the First Secretary has made a number of encouragingly pro-business speeches recently. In fact, he said that both the Government and Europe should get off the back of small businesses. He seemed to be implying that the Government now want to come out of the EU social chapter. Is that the case? Will the Minister also confirm that it is still his Department's intention strongly to resist the job-destroying agency workers directive?

Ian Lucas: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, which are greatly appreciated. I ran a small business myself for a period and I know the importance of good regulation for small businesses. Some regulation is good, but the Government are keen to reduce and eliminate unnecessary regulation. The type of regulation that is acceptable to the Government should support workers. The minimum wage is a form of regulation of which we are very proud. We all support that type of good regulation, but we will always eliminate bad regulation. We are always listening to businesses to hear what they have to say, so that we can do that as often as possible.

Michael Clapham: As my hon. Friend will be aware, reducing the imposition of regulation on small business is important, but another important factor is ensuring that the finance is available for small businesses. He is aware that the enterprise finance guarantee is working well and is getting money for small businesses to where it should be. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient money in that scheme to ensure that, as we are at the turning point of the recession, the vital resource of money for small businesses will be available for some time to come?

Ian Lucas: It is, of course, extremely important that such finance is available for small business. I noted, as I sat as a Whip in the Chamber, how the Opposition have stopped talking about the ineffectiveness of so-called Government schemes. Those schemes are working. It is always important to listen to business and to hear what it has to say about the availability of resources. If there are shortages, we will certainly listen to what small businesses have to say.

Peter Luff: May I, for the second time in less than 24 hours, congratulate and welcome the Minister and extend that welcome to the rest of his ministerial colleagues on the Front Bench, pausing only to regret that the majority of the team—and its most powerful members—sit in another place? I invite him to reassure the House of the Department's commitment to regulatory reform, and particularly to the deregulation of small businesses. I urge him to reconsider the provisions of my private Member's Bill, which would remove the requirement for a small business to apply for rate relief so that it would be applied automatically, instead. I withdrew that Bill voluntarily on the basis of assurances from the Government that, to be honest, have not been met.

Ian Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his kind words. As I mentioned previously, as I ran a small business, I know the frustrations caused to businesses by the imposition of what they perceive as unnecessary regulation. I can assure him that I will do all I can to remove unnecessary regulation for small businesses, because I bear the scars of having to go through lots of forms that I could not understand.

David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to a key role in the empire of Mandelsonia. It is good to see him on the Front Bench.
	In tracking the concerns of small businesses, we are seeing the cost of compliance moving up their list, and that is a worry to many who recognise the role of small businesses in creating most of the jobs that will pull us out of recession over the next 18 months. Will he assure the House that the dropping of regulatory reform from the original title of one of the component Departments does not mean that there will be a relaxation of attention on this important area for small and medium-sized enterprises?

Ian Lucas: As the Minister responsible for regulatory reform, I can assure him that I do not intend that its importance should drop in any way. It is a vital part of creating a more efficient and competitive economy and I will do all I can to take the agenda forward.

Mark Prisk: I, too, welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I lose track, but I think that he is the seventh or eighth Minister who I have shadowed in the last few years and I genuinely hope that he lasts longer than his predecessors.
	Despite the Minister's claims and his welcome experience in small business, red tape is strangling enterprise. Let me give him an example. To install new microgeneration technologies in this country, a business must comply with not one, two or even three regulators but five separate regulators, three of whom make separate charges. Is that burden of regulation intentional, or is it just the result of ministerial incompetence?

Ian Lucas: It is never the Government's intention to create difficulties for anyone. Our intention is to make progress. I should be very glad to have more information about the specific example to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I shall gladly look into it. I thank him for his kind words, and assure him that I intend to be here for a very long time.

Scientific Research

Evan Harris: How much funding his Department is providing for scientific research in 2009-10.

Patrick McFadden: My Department will invest some £5.5 billion in research funding in 2009-10. This is made up of the science research budget, which will reach almost £4 billion next year, and the Higher Education Funding Council quality-related research grants.

Evan Harris: The Minister will recognise that science is long term and involves dedication. Does he accept that there is consternation in the science community that, since the latest reshuffle, neither of the words "universities" or "science" appears in the name of his Department? Moreover, the Science Minister and the Secretary of State are both in the House of Lords and therefore unaccountable to this House. The Science Minister is also forced to take on defence duties as well, and there is a real fear that the needs of strategic, long-term science will be subordinate to business. How can he reassure the science community on all those points?

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that our Science Minister brings an enormous wealth of expertise from his industrial background that is to the advantage of both the country and the Government. As for the Department, it makes absolute sense to bring together our leading-edge scientific research with support for business and the fields of higher and further education. The economic situation that we face requires all those things to be brought together, in the interests of scientific research and the country's economic future.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will know that the investment in science that the Government have made in the north-west of England has paid real dividends, in that it has attracted high-quality science and protected and developed businesses at the leading edge of our economy. Will he assure the House that investment will continue to be made outside the golden triangle of the south-east, and that there will be real investment in science in the regions?

Patrick McFadden: The investment over recent years in the north-west has been extremely welcome, and is a reflection of the fact that the science budget has trebled since 1997. We have maintained our commitment to the science budget, and that stands in contrast to the signals given yesterday, when we were told that the Opposition are planning a 10 per cent. cut across the board in such funding. The sort of choice that the country will face in respect of science funding is therefore quite clear.

Patrick Cormack: May I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)? Notwithstanding the Minister's proper defence of the Science Minister's credentials, will he accept that there is very real consternation in the universities in general, and the science community in particular, about the fact that the words "universities" and "science" have both been deleted from the name of this mega-Department? What can he do truly to reassure us?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a very long time, and I have to remind him that it is not unknown for science to be a responsibility of this Department. That was the case until a couple of years ago, so I do not see the need for consternation about its return to the Department. That synergy was there before, and it will still be here in the future.

Andy Reed: The leading scientific research undertaken at places like Loughborough university, and the development of resulting products, will be vital if we are to bring our economy out of the current recession. However, although the global figures always sound impressive, is my hon. Friend aware that there is often a shortfall at local level in the amount of funding available for the development of leading scientific projects, and especially for bringing them forward to market? Will he ensure that greater emphasis is placed in future on those technologies that will make a real impact on the economic situation of the east midlands region as a whole? Will he argue the case that, far from being reduced, funding should be increased, as the technologies being developed will create jobs both locally and internationally?

Patrick McFadden: I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion of science funding, research and educational opportunity. His point about the application of science and bringing research to market is well made. We are hugely committed to that. It is one reason why we have backed the science budget and why it is in such a different state today from the science budget that we inherited when we came into office. I assure him that that commitment will remain in the future.

Stephen Williams: May I welcome the Minister for Business to his wider range of responsibilities? Of course, investment in science, technology, engineering, maths, and also in the arts and humanities for the digital economy, is essential if we are to emerge from the recession even stronger. In just a matter of weeks, there will be hundreds of thousands of graduates leaving our universities in the bleakest job market for a generation. Now is an ideal time to expand the research opportunities for them, so that they can learn, invest and build our future, rather than have a taste of the dole queue.

Patrick McFadden: We are acutely aware of the graduates who will come out of universities in the coming months. The predecessor Department, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, announced measures on the expansion of internships and so on to try to expand opportunity for people in that position. I quite agree with him that research should not just be about science; we have also expanded funding to the economic and social research budget, which has gone up from £105 million in 2004-05 to £166 million in the last financial year. Once again, there is a stark contrast between that commitment, and pledges for a 10 per cent. cut across the board from the Conservative party.

Derek Twigg: Further to point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), one of the key areas in the north-west for science development is the Daresbury laboratory and business park. Its output is key to science, invention and research and to products being brought to market. It is key to have the space and the willingness to develop that through factories and other facilities. There is an important point to be made about Daresbury: it is one of the key areas in the country with the room to do that. I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that he keeps that in mind when he is looking at funding for science, as Daresbury science and business park is one of the key areas in the country for that.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The excellence at Daresbury is well recognised. I know that he is a strong advocate for it, and I can assure him that that is understood in Government. His points about the spin-offs and benefits from that are absolutely correct.

Adam Afriyie: There are clearly many unanswered questions about science funding in the future. Just two years ago, the Prime Minister announced with a great fanfare that he was creating a new Department called the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which basically separated science from business, yet less than two years later he has abandoned that new Department and taken us back to the future, with all the resultant costs and confusion. The question is: was he wrong back then, or is he wrong today? Like Thomas More, I see no further alternative.

Patrick McFadden: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been living for the past two years, but I have to tell him that there have been some changes in the economy in that period. We face a worldwide economic downturn, and in those circumstances, it makes absolute sense to bring together science, business, and higher and further education. We now have a Department in which educational opportunity, science and innovation and support for business all work together for the benefit of the country's economy. That can only be a good thing, and I would have hoped that he would support it. Perhaps he should address his concerns to his party's Treasury spokespeople, given the 10 per cent. cut in the Department's budget that his party would make if it had its way.

Further Education Colleges

John Howell: What estimate he has made of the costs incurred by further education colleges in seeking (a) application in principle and (b) application in detail status for the capital expenditure programmes.

Kevin Brennan: The Learning and Skills Council and independent property consultants are working with colleges to understand the extent of the costs. Until that work is completed we will not know the exact expenditure that colleges have incurred, but no college that has acted reasonably will be left unable to meet its financial obligations relating to that matter.

John Howell: Can the Minister tell us how many colleges have had to abandon building projects over the past nine months, and what impact that will have on their ability to cut costs to meet Treasury efficiency targets?

Kevin Brennan: It is important to acknowledge the concern felt as a result of what happened, the fact that there was a review subsequently, and the fact that there is a process in place through which colleges will receive decisions in a way that is objective and meets the priorities involved. It is also important to remember that we are talking about not whether, but how investment will be made. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could pledge that his party will meet the investment in further education that this Government are promising.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows that his new Department will be judged on how well it does its job, so can I urge him to prioritise the decisions on colleges? When a constituency college of mine, Kirklees college, Huddersfield, took over the failing Dewsbury college, it was given clear promises that it would have a rebuilding scheme. It has been delayed and delayed, however, so it is about time that that bureaucratic nightmare ended and we allowed people to get on with such schemes, which are good for education and good for the regeneration of our towns.

Kevin Brennan: Yes, and can I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work in his constituency and in his role as a Select Committee Chairman? There is a process in place, and all parties agree that it is the right process to deal with what occurred following the Foster review. The Learning and Skills Council will very shortly take decisions on those projects that meet the priorities and criteria that the Foster review set out. I can promise my hon. Friend that he will not have to wait long for those decisions to be announced.

Maria Miller: Colleges throughout the country will have been dismayed to receive from the Learning and Skills Council yet further correspondence stating that the decisions that were supposed to be taken on capital programmes last week have been delayed. Indeed, the LSC's national projects director said:
	"We made an erroneous assumption that 30 to 40 projects might be shovel-ready, but there are an awful lot more."
	Does that not indicate to the House that the LSC is still in turmoil? Perhaps the Minister will reassure the House today. Exactly when can our colleges expect to know whether they will get the money that they so badly need?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Lady will know that the previous chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council resigned over the matter and that Ministers came to the House and gave an explanation and an apology for what had occurred at the LSC. The new chief executive wrote just last week to all college principals to explain that he was hopeful of announcing the projects that will go through to the next stage of the process very soon, and I have no reason to believe that that is not the case.

Ian Cawsey: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and fellow MP4 band mate on a well-deserved promotion to his new post? We look forward to hearing the song that he will no doubt write about it.
	On the colleges issue, my hon. Friend will be well aware of the worry that has been caused, the delay to the capital programme and the money that colleges have already expended in order to be shovel-ready. In my constituency, Goole college, which is part of the Hull college campus, is trying to push forward a project as part of the town's renaissance project; and, in north Lincolnshire the excellent John Leggott college is shovel-ready and a local contractor, Clugston, is ready to go in and deliver. Will my hon. Friend look into the issue as a priority and give those people the news that they hope to hear?

Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to my post. Being shovel-ready—to use the phrase that appears in some papers relating to the issue—is one of the criteria, along with a scheme's impact on the local economy and local learning, and so on. Those criteria are now being used to come to an objective decision. On his concerns about the expenditure and costs that have been incurred so far, as I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), reasonable costs will be reimbursed to colleges. I also assure my hon. Friend that the Learning and Skills Council's decisions will be announced shortly.

David Evennett: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new job or, should I say, jobs, because he has a couple. He has inherited a lamentable situation, but I wish him personally very well and success.
	Further education colleges are strongly rooted in their local communities and characterised by their localness and accessibility. They successfully attract many learners from non-traditional backgrounds. What message does the Minister have for the thousands of learners and lecturers who now have to use sub-standard Portakabins and other accommodation as a result of the continuing delays that have been caused by the mismanagement of the capital programme and budget? When does he expect them to have proper classrooms again?

Kevin Brennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. He and I worked closely together when we were both Whips, and I am sure that that will aid our working relationship in our new roles.
	My message to those learners and to people across the country would be that I am positive that far fewer students are in Portakabins now than under the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power. During its last year in power, it invested not a penny in further education colleges; there were 7 per cent. real-terms cuts in further education budgets during its last four years of power. From what we heard yesterday, I am afraid that it is clear that if it came back to power, there would be more of the same.

Eric Illsley: Barnsley college has spent £12 million in preparing for its capital programme refurbishment. It is halfway through a four-phase redevelopment, two phases of which have already been completed. The third phase led to the demolition of the college. We are not only shovel-ready, to use the silly phrase, but the shovels have been on site since last year. Our programme has been interrupted, but there is absolutely no reason why the Learning and Skills Council cannot allow the project to continue. Barnsley college is £12 million in debt—technically, it is insolvent.

Kevin Brennan: I can reassure my hon. Friend by repeating the commitment that no college will be allowed to become insolvent as a result of the process. My hon. Friend raised the matter with the Prime Minister yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, and he was probably reasonably pleased with the answer. Barnsley college is one of the colleges being considered by the Learning and Skills Council under the objective criteria following the publication of the Foster report. I am pleased that there has been a high level of investment so far in the college, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have to wait long to hear from the LSC about whether Barnsley college has been successful in its next phase.

Adult Numeracy and Literacy

Laura Moffatt: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of adult numeracy and literacy courses.

Kevin Brennan: Since we launched our skills for life strategy in 2001, we have enabled 2.8 million people to achieve nationally recognised qualifications. Our strategy is changing lives and helping people to find, stay and progress in work, increase their earnings, help their children and play a more active role in their communities.

Laura Moffatt: I very much welcome that response, and I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. Does he agree that there are some real signs of improvement in our colleges due to the Government's early action? Job losses, however, remain part of the landscape. Will he encourage more people to take up the courses so that, if they happen to lose their jobs, they will be in a much better place from which to apply for new ones?

Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome, although she slightly inflated my status. It is important that we commit to going further and try to be ambitious about our targets and ambitions for literacy and numeracy; that is why we recently refreshed our skills for life strategy in relation to those skills. It is also important to remember that the skills impact not only on the adult who acquires them, but on that adult's family. The ability to read a story to the children and help them with their sums and homework is really important. It is essential that we change the culture around such issues in our country—particularly in respect of numeracy, which has not been given the importance that it should have been in relation to literacy. We have a lot more to do, but good progress has been made so far.

Anne McIntosh: Should not numeracy and literacy be taught first in the home? We should encourage families to eat together, speak together and learn children the language and social skills that they need, rather than leaving that to public sector funding. We need to resolve the problem of broken families.

Kevin Brennan: We do, although we should teach the children rather than "learn" them, as the hon. Lady said. Seriously, though, she is right that such skills must start in the home. That is why it is so important that those basic skills should be taught to adults who have not acquired them. We are trying to address the issue from both ends, through, first, improving literacy and numeracy delivery in schools. That has been going on for the past 12 years. Remember that children who started school in 1997 are now young adults coming through the system. We are also trying to make up for the decades of neglect of literacy and numeracy. We could blame Macmillan, Harold Wilson or anyone we like, but the legacy needs to be dealt with. That is what we are trying to do. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We must try to think family as we try to enable the skills to be taught from an early age.

Higher Education Facilities

Alan Beith: What recent discussions he has had with the Higher Education Funding Council for England on new locations for higher education facilities in England.

Rosie Winterton: On 6 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) wrote to the HEFCE reaffirming the Government's commitment to the new university challenge.

Alan Beith: Is the Minister aware that probably nowhere in England is further away from any institute of higher education than Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that a very good community-based bid involving Sunderland university and institutions on both sides of the border is going to be submitted? May I ask her and her fellow Ministers to take a close personal interest in filling this gap and bringing something to Berwick that would be hugely beneficial on both sides of the border?

Rosie Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, some 27 areas have expressed an initial interest in applying for a new university centre. We have been delighted with the enthusiastic response from partnerships across the whole of England. I am sure that the application from his constituency will be considered alongside all the others, but we certainly take a special interest in it.

Jeff Ennis: My right hon. Friend will know that in South Yorkshire our only higher education institutions are based in Sheffield. As long ago as the early 1990s, the three former coalfield boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster were successful in winning city challenge funding from the previous Government. We tried to make our flagship project the establishment of a university of the coalfields in the Dearne valley. Would it not be fantastic if this Government could achieve the grand objective that the boroughs set, as long ago as the early 1990s, of establishing a university of the coalfields in the Dearne valley in South Yorkshire?

Rosie Winterton: I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about the quite low aspirations, in a sense, to go to university that there have been in our area among young people. I know, not only as a fellow South Yorkshire MP but as the regional Minister, that he has been campaigning extremely hard on that. He is absolutely right—we need to do everything we can to support young people in our area in going to university. That has been our aim, and it will continue to be so.

Intellectual Property

John Whittingdale: What steps he is taking to tackle illegal distribution of intellectual property.

David Lammy: The Government work to tackle IP crime in three main areas. First, we have to get the legal framework right, so I have been working with my ministerial colleagues on the Digital Britain agenda, particularly on the problem of file sharing. Secondly, we have to co-ordinate enforcement activities. That is why I have set up a new ministerial group to deal with issues of enforcement and to support the IP group. Of course, we also have to raise capacity and awareness.

John Whittingdale: Does the Minister agree that online piracy represents a threat to the survival of the TV, film and music industries? What progress has he made in persuading internet service providers to take action against illegal file sharers by adopting a graduated response? Can he confirm that the Government will legislate to back up any action that is agreed?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right; this is an important issue which is challenging Governments across the world. Indeed, over the weekend elected politicians have been standing on that agenda in Sweden, and he will be aware of issues that have been raised in France. In this country, we have said that it is important to move to notification, which will reduce file-sharing activity so that people know that what they are doing is illegal, and we will move towards legislating to compel internet service providers and rights holders to work together.

Apprenticeship Courses

Andrew Selous: How much has been allocated to fund apprenticeship courses in (a) South-West Bedfordshire and (b) England in 2009-10.

Kevin Brennan: Funding allocations to apprenticeship training providers in England, including Bedfordshire, for the 2009-10 academic year have not yet been confirmed. The National Apprenticeship Service will notify providers later this month. We expect to spend about £1 billion on apprenticeships in 2008-09 and more than £1 billion in 2009-10.

Andrew Selous: Why are the Government cutting 30 student places at Dunstable college this year?

Kevin Brennan: Of course, we are not cutting any student places. In relation to apprenticeships in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my understanding is that Bedford Training, for example, has exceeded its maximum contract value and reported a waiting list of 20 learners, but will have enough funding in 2009-10 to recruit all 20. However, if I am incorrect about the issue that he raises, I will meet him and ensure that we look into it.

Dari Taylor: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I hope that he accepts that there is a funding problem. It has been primarily caused by many employers trying to cope with the recession and having in their terms to cut back, and apprenticeships are one area in which they are doing so. A number of young apprentices in my constituency have finished only 50 per cent. of their courses. I ask my hon. Friend to look at that problem to see how he can help those young people to complete their apprenticeships.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, although I should point out to her that adult starts on apprenticeships have risen from 300 in 2006-07 to 27,000 in 2007-08, so the context is increased investment rather than any reduction. We have to make that clear. However, she is absolutely right to point out that redundancy can have an impact on apprentices, as it can on anyone else during an economic downturn. The National Apprenticeship Service provides a one-stop shop for employers, providers and learners to access information support should that occur, and the intention is to place apprentices on suitable schemes. Also, the length of time for which they may undertake training if they cannot immediately be placed has been extended. However, it is important to set the context of the increased investment and number of apprentice places.

Phil Willis: I welcome the Minister and the rest of the team to their posts. Members of all parties are really pleased to see the rise in the number of adult apprenticeships, and the funding for 2010 looks reasonably secure. The problem that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) raised was about employers taking part.
	On 9 June, in a comment to  The Guardian, the Chancellor made clear that education would be one of the priorities after 2010, together with housing, transport and health. Will the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee that in that period the funding for adult skills—particularly adult FE and higher education, which will be crucial to the future of our economy—will be maintained and not cut?

Kevin Brennan: The commitment of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to apprenticeships is well known and long-standing, and I confirm that it will remain an absolute priority of this Government to grow the number of apprentices and invest in them. I have been appointed as Minister with responsibility for apprentices and will work in the Department for Children, Schools and Families as well as the new Business Department, which shows our commitment to connecting the under-19 and adult apprenticeship schemes. I also commit to engaging an apprentice in my own private office.

David Willetts: I, too, congratulate Ministers on their new posts, although we believe that our colleges and universities are not simply the instruments of a Business Department, and they certainly do not look forward to reporting to Alan Sugar.
	I congratulate the Department on its efforts to improve social mobility with an imaginative new route into the House of Lords—four Ministers so far, and at least another one on the way. Does the Minister recognise that in order really to improve social mobility we have to spread apprenticeships and provide new routes from them to university? Does he accept that at the moment, the biggest single victims of the recession are young people? They see apprenticeships disappearing even after they have been started, and they face the prospect of finding it hard to get to university when they apply, and of being unemployed when they leave university. Will the Minister, new to these responsibilities, make a simple commitment that no young person who has started an apprenticeship will find themselves losing it before they have been able to complete it?

Kevin Brennan: As I said earlier, some redundancies in firms are inevitable during an economic downturn and a recession, and that could include apprenticeships. I have committed to ensuring that the National Apprenticeship Service will do all it can to place those apprentices in similar apprenticeships elsewhere, and that extended training is available if that is not possible in the immediate future.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about social mobility and the need to focus on younger people and apprenticeships and increase the numbers. As someone from a working-class background, with a steelworker for a father and a dinner lady for a mother, I know something about social mobility and the importance of training, education and apprenticeships. I knew as a young man growing up in south Wales that many of my friends benefited from the sort of apprenticeships that were decimated when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. That is why we are making such investment. We will publish a framework in the summer for apprentices getting through to university.

Topical Questions

Philip Davies: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McFadden: Our Department brings together support for business and enterprise with innovation, skills and further and higher education policy to ensure that we foster competitiveness and spread opportunity. All that is important to Britain's economic future.

Philip Davies: Are the Government still committed to implementing the entire package of reforms proposed by Richard Hooper on regulation, pensions and ownership? Lord Mandelson recently said that that was vital to the Royal Mail. Is it still vital or has it been ditched to save the Prime Minister's skin?

Patrick McFadden: The reform of Royal Mail is important, and Richard Hooper recommended the three elements that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The Bill to carry forward those reforms has completed its stages in the other place and been introduced here. Its Second Reading is a decision for the business managers at the appropriate time. On whether all three elements are essential, they are very important, but, as the Secretary of State also said, we will continue to try to secure best value for the taxpayer, and the timetable for any transaction for Royal Mail may be a little longer than that for the legislation.

Lindsay Roy: This Government have given a clear commitment to continuing to support business and enterprise during the recession. What additional dividends does my right hon. Friend anticipate from the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar to the departmental team?

Patrick McFadden: Sir Alan Sugar is one of Britain's most well known and respected entrepreneurs. He will act as an adviser to Government—not as a Minister. We believe that it is important to draw on that sort of entrepreneurial talent precisely because of the economic challenges that the country faces. While we draw on the best talent available, others are indulging in parlour games about peers and personalities. We will continue to draw on whatever talent is necessary to do the best economic job for the country.

Kenneth Clarke: May I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to Cabinet status in Lord Mandelson's amazing, ever-expanding empire, which now stretches from space to defence sales to universities and further education? No doubt Lord Mandelson has other territorial ambitions in mind.
	On 11 May in the House of Lords, Lord Mandelson said:
	"It would be irresponsible of the Government to allow delays to the suite of measures needed to reform Royal Mail and secure the future of the universal postal service... Any delay would merely serve to threaten the sustainability of the network."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 848.]
	The Minister knows that we expected Second Reading of the Bill two days ago, on Tuesday. He knows that it is the acid test of whether this lame-duck Government are any longer capable of delivering a difficult decision about any important subject. Why is the Bill being delayed if it is not because of the internal political dissension in the extraordinary Cabinet in which he now finds himself serving?

Patrick McFadden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that no date for a Second Reading was announced. The Government are committed— [ Interruption. ] The Government are committed to reform of the Royal Mail. The challenges that it faces in addressing the pension fund deficit, the need for investment and change, and the need to change the regulatory system are real. We remain committed to the legislation, which will be brought forward. What the Secretary of State also said about the transaction is that we have a duty to secure the best value of money for the taxpayer and to have an eye to the market conditions, but the legislation will be brought forward.

Ann Coffey: I am very pleased that this year 55 per cent. more young people in Stockport are going to university than in 1997. The new university centre, in which Stockport college of further education has expressed an interest, will encourage even more young people to do higher degrees. However, Stockport college is still in negotiations with the Learning and Skills Council about its capital programme. When a final decision is made, may I urge the Minister to ensure that consideration is given to the college's excellent record of achievement and that funding is released so that the college can complete its new town centre campus?

Kevin Brennan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaigning and lobbying that she has done on behalf of her constituents. I know that she wrote to the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills earlier this month to reiterate her support for that programme. As I said earlier in questions, the Learning and Skills Council will be announcing decisions in the near future. One criterion in the new objective set of criteria that followed the report commissioned earlier this year is the ability of any investment to impact on learning.

Desmond Swayne: How many legislative reform orders have Ministers in the Department laid before Parliament this year?

Patrick McFadden: I brought a legislative reform order on insolvency before the House just some weeks ago, and I recommend the debate to the hon. Gentleman very strongly.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the provision of learning for pleasure and its importance to communities, and to older people in particular? I thank her for recently leading a lively debate with some lively elderly people in my constituency, on Bar lane in Riddlesden. Learning for pleasure can mean all sorts of things, and can create cross-departmental savings and advantages. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hark back to 1983, when I took a course at my local college—I was unemployed at the time—in teaching English as a second language. As a result, for four years I dedicated my Wednesday mornings to teaching young Pakistani women who had entered this country as wives. They were not allowed to go to the local college, but I was able to introduce them to English, which was a useful exercise for them and me.

Rosie Winterton: I have very fond memories of the meeting that I had with those lively older people in my hon. Friend's constituency. They were extremely keen to put forward their views on how important learning is for older people. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have studied the White Paper "The Learning Revolution", which sets out an ambitious vision for community learning in the 21st century, with £30 million of spending added to it. She is quite right that there is often a social impact too. The experience that she described is one that I know is shared by many others. The White Paper will do a lot to encourage that kind of activity.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister responsible for further education will be aware that the College of West Anglia in my constituency is one of those colleges whose capital programme has been put on hold. It was to have a new campus which would have been the centrepiece and foundation stone of a major regeneration project in South Lynn. The delay will not only impact on the wider community but cause widespread anxiety among the staff, lecturers and students at the college. Will the Minister confirm that the changes and reorganisations in his Department will not impact in any way on the LSC's decision?

Kevin Brennan: I can absolutely confirm that the changes in the Department will not impact on that, because we have already set in place the necessary measures to resolve the issue of the pipeline projects—the capital projects for FE colleges—through the Foster review, which has set out the objective criteria that are to be followed. They include considerations of the impact on regeneration and on learning, and of whether a project is ready to go ahead. I should like to add that, in this year's Budget, the Chancellor pledged an additional £300 million for that capital project in recognition of its importance during the economic downturn. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not have to wait much longer to hear the results of the LSC's deliberations.

Mike Hall: May I press my hon. Friend on the case for the Mid-Cheshire college redevelopment? It is an absolutely fantastic £35 million redevelopment project for a college that provides an outstanding quality of education. However, the project is not quite shovel-ready, and the fact that delays to the shovel-ready projects have already been announced means that colleges further down the line will face even more delays. The college is desperate to know the time lines for the decision on its allocation so that it can plan for the future. It is also worried that the LSC's recent announcements on the criteria used to determine funding do not mention quality. Surely the funding should follow quality, and outstanding colleges such as Mid-Cheshire college should benefit from that funding.

Kevin Brennan: Funding will follow—or will lead—improved learning opportunities. That is part of the project. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done to promote that project in his constituency. The projects that are not quite ready to be dealt with at this stage will be dealt with later in the year if they are at the appropriate stage by then. In addition to the £300 million from the Budget, which I mentioned earlier, an additional £2.3 billion will be spent on these projects during this comprehensive spending review period. Furthermore, there has already been an indicative letter from the Treasury to the Learning and Skills Council about a further pledge of £300 million a year, so this is not something that will come to an end—provided, that is, that we have a Government who are committed to making that investment.

Paul Rowen: The education maintenance allowance has been a huge success. However, one of its problems is that there is a sharp cut-off related to parental income. One of my constituents, a single parent, has a son at university and another in sixth-form college. Does the Minister accept that the sharp income-related cut-off takes no account of additional circumstances and can discourage many people from staying on in education? Will he look into that?

David Lammy: I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman that the scheme discourages young people from staying on. Quite the contrary: when I have visited colleges, I have spoken to young people who are very grateful for the EMA. It has been a success. However, I am willing to look into the particular circumstances that he mentions, although that has not been what I have heard as I have gone round the colleges and universities.

John Thurso: Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills gave earlier, does not he recognise that the Postal Services Bill seems to have disappeared into the legislative ether, somewhere between the other place and Committee Room 14? Does not he accept that one part of that Bill is of particular importance for the future, whatever happens? That is the regulatory toolkit that is needed and that has been agreed on by those on both sides of the House. If he is not going to bring the Bill forward, will he at least agree to bring that measure forward?

Patrick McFadden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that regulatory change in postal services is necessary, and the proposal in the Bill is to put at the heart of the new regulatory system the maintenance of the universal service—the six days a week, one-price-goes-anywhere service that is at the heart of our postal system. I remind the House that the conclusion drawn by Richard Hooper was that if we did not change and reform the Royal Mail, that service would be under threat. That is what has happened in some other countries, and it is certainly not what we want to see here in the United Kingdom.

Tony Lloyd: May I refer once again to the LSC's review of further education college building, particularly in respect of the Manchester college? In terms of excellence, capacity to learn and shovel-readiness, that college's proposals are high on the priority list. Manchester college differs from other further education colleges in that further education is the most likely route in Manchester for the overwhelming majority of young people in post-school education, as they do not go in sufficient numbers into higher education. It thus matters far more that our FE system, which is already excellent, is improved. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point on board.

Kevin Brennan: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents and shows his intimate knowledge of the education system in his constituency. I can only repeat that the LSC is considering all the projects in the pipeline and will make its announcement shortly, based on the objective criteria that we have talked about. We should remember that this is not about whether we should make investment in further education, but about how we make it, which is in stark contrast to what would happen if the Conservative party were in power.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming parliamentary business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 15 June—Opposition day (13th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the impact of business rates followed by a debate on the impact of the recession on rural communities. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 16 June—A general debate on European affairs.
	Wednesday 17 June—Mr. Speaker's valedictory and tributes by the House followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Business Rate Supplements Bill.
	Thursday 18 June—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on food, farming and the environment.
	Friday 19 June—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 22 June will include:
	Monday 22 June—The House will meet to elect a Speaker.
	Tuesday 23 June—Second Reading of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 24 June—Opposition day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 25 June—House Business.
	Friday 26 June—Private Members' Bills.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I also welcome the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) as her new Deputy Leader of the House, and express the appreciation of Opposition Members for the manner in which her predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is now an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, conducted himself in that position. His grasp of detail and his approach to the House was respected and appreciated—and his mastery of Spanish, I understand, makes him well suited to his new job as Minister for Latin America. [Hon. Members: "And French."] And French, we are told. On his moving, we thus say a friendly adios—and au revoir, too.
	I want to take this opportunity to extend our gratitude to House staff for keeping this place going during the tube strike.
	May we have a statement—or even a debate—on the legitimacy, remit, structure and organisation of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? As we have just heard in parliamentary questions, the recent reshuffle that the Prime Minister was forced into staging has to be seen as one of the most shambolic in political history, with 11 Ministers resigning from the Government in the course of seven days. Worse still, civil servants in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills returned to their desks after lunch to find that their Department had been abolished, and subsumed into the empire of "he who must now be named the First Secretary". This new super-Department has 11 Ministers, over half of whom are non-elected peers—no doubt exactly what the Government have in mind as they discuss their latest schemes for democratic renewal. Now that Lord Mandelson is Secretary of State for almost everything—including outer space—and has become the de facto Deputy Prime Minister, is the Leader of the House still in favour of her earlier proposal that he should be able to answer questions in the House of Commons?
	May we have a debate on higher education and the prospects of graduates? We must not forget that universities too have been casually added to Lord Mandelson's portfolio. However, this is the week in which we learnt that in 2007-08 one in seven students dropped out of university, a quarter failed to finish their degrees, and almost half the students at London Metropolitan university quit their courses before the end of the year. Worse still, a report published today suggests that 40,000 students graduating this year, no doubt with heavy debts, will still be struggling to find work in six months' time. With the scale of the mess that the Government's have made in higher education becoming more apparent by the day, does the right hon. and learned Lady really think that this is the time to be creating further upheaval in Departments just to satisfy ministerial empire-building?
	The reshuffle has also left some important pieces of legislation in complete confusion. May we have a statement on the Government's immigration policy? Comments made by the departing Home Secretary on the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill during her appearance in the Chamber last week left Members on both sides of the House perplexed about the Government's basic policy on immigration, and about whether they are in favour of a future cap. Given that the British National party managed to win in areas that the Labour party had deserted, where much concern was expressed about the impact of immigration on jobs, does the Leader of the House not think that there should now be a clear statement of what the Government's policy on immigration really is?
	Let me repeat a question that I asked last week, and which Opposition spokesmen pursued during Question Time today: when will we debate the Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill? May I also ask when we shall see the draft legislative programme that we would normally have seen by this time of year?
	Last week the right hon. Lady asserted that a Treasury Minister had recently updated the House on the progress of the independent inquiry into Equitable Life compensation during a debate in Westminster Hall. However, the only real information that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave there was bad news—the fact that no actuary had yet been appointed to Sir John Chadwick's review body. The Government have been deliberately vacillating for months, and I have to say that I think the House's temper is beginning to fray. Will the right hon. Lady now give an absolute guarantee that Sir John will produce an interim report—for us, in the House, before the summer recess—on how Equitable Life policy-holders will be compensated?
	Is the Leader of the House concerned about the fact that since she has become Minister for Women and Equality, the number of women in the Cabinet has actually decreased? Although we know that she could never be dismissed as mere window-dressing—indeed, if she were, I would immediately become the window cleaner—may I take this opportunity to reiterate my support for any bid that she might yet make to become Britain's second woman Prime Minister? I echo the comment made on  The Guardian website this week:
	"I'd like to see Harriet Harman as Labour's candidate for PM at the next election. She'd be just like Margaret Thatcher—a female party leader who convinces millions to vote Tory."

Harriet Harman: I echo the hon. Gentleman's appreciative comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the former Deputy Leader of the House, who now has responsibility for European issues. I agree that he was a brilliant Deputy Leader—and he does not only speak Spanish; I believe that he also speaks French, German and Italian.

Peter Bone: And Welsh?

Harriet Harman: And probably Welsh as well.
	Let me also express, on behalf of all of us, our appreciation of the House's staff in connection with the tube strike, and say on behalf of everyone in London that we expect agreement to be reached. Londoners cannot be held to ransom and have their lives made a misery as a result of a dispute involving the tube, which is the backbone of London's transport structures.
	The hon. Gentleman commented on the new structure of the Department responsible for business; there have, of course, been departmental questions to that Department this morning. We make no apology for putting supporting business and tackling the economic crisis at the centre of Government action. That is a priority for this country and the biggest challenge for Government. We make no apology for reconfiguring the machinery of government to be focused effectively on that task.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the prospects for graduates. It is right that we see further and higher education not only as essential for individuals who want the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but as a central economic issue. The recovery has to be skills based, and include as many people as possible, which is why configuring the universities into the Department responsible for business at the centre of our economic strategy is very important. Since we came into government there has been a massive increase in the number of people able to undertake further and higher education. The most recent figures show that since 1997 there has been about a 300 per cent. increase in the number of my constituents who now are able to gain degrees; I am sure that the picture will be the same in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is massive progress, on which we will continue to build.
	Our immigration policy remains as it ever was: firm, fair and points-based. We have all been shocked and horrified by the fact that two great regions of this country—the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside—are represented by the British National party, which has in its constitution a provision that no one who is not white can be a member. Under the Equality Bill that is passing through the House, that constitution will be made unlawful. I know that the Opposition voted against the Equality Bill, but I hope that they will now strongly support the Bill, which will prevent us from having an apartheid political party in this country.
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) was being interviewed by George Alagiah on Channel 4, she said, "I was born in Egypt but I could be a member of the British National party because I am white. You were born in Britain but you would not be able to be a member of the British National party because of the colour of your skin." All of us should agree that there is no place in this country for a political party to have an apartheid constitution, and the Equality Bill will prevent that.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) asked about the Postal Services Bill, which he noticed was not in the forthcoming business that I have announced. He knows that I announce two weeks at a time. The Bill has completed its stages through the House of Lords, and he must await the announcement of its arrival in this House.
	The draft legislative programme has been delayed because this year we had elections in June, immediately prior to which there was a purdah period; previously the elections were in May. That affected the timetabling of the draft legislative programme, which will appear very soon.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Equitable Life. It is the policyholders who have lost out in Equitable Life who are frustrated and want action quickly. The House will be updated, before it rises, on the progress on Sir John Chadwick's investigations.
	As far as women in politics are concerned, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued attention to this issue. It is important that women in politics make sure that we deliver for women in this country. Politics is not about us as politicians; it is about what we as women and men working together can do in respect of the lives of women and men in this country. That is why I hope that Members on both sides will be prepared to support extra maternity pay and leave, more flexible working for balancing work and family responsibilities, ending pay discrimination against women and having more women in the House of Commons.

David Anderson: On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a written statement about the situation facing Dairy Farmers of Britain, in which he guaranteed that all parties would work together to try to minimise the impact of the closures taking place and the demise of dairy farms. The regional development agency, the banks and the local work force are working together to try to avoid the closure of a dairy in my Blaydon constituency, which could happen tonight. The one group that it is not doing its bit is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Please can we have what the Secretary of State offered: an updated statement to the House as the situation develops? Please will the Leader of the House pass that message on to DEFRA from me?

Harriet Harman: I know that this issue demands urgent attention, and the points that my hon. Friend makes are very forceful. This needs to be looked at right away, but there will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss these matters when there is a general debate on food and farming next Thursday.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) raises a very important issue for all the farmers who are members of that co-operative, and I hope that it will be debated.
	First, may I join in the tributes to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? He entertained us in the debate on the idea of a Dissolution yesterday evening, despite having been reshuffled to the Foreign Office. My only regret is that the Leader of the House was not able to join us for that debate as well. One would have thought that the Dissolution of the House was a business of the House matter—but it seems that as far as the Cabinet was concerned, it was a matter for Wales, and Wales only. In any case, the Leader of the House has survived in the Cabinet—she is one of the few Members who have done so—and we are glad about that.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) raised the issue of the machinery of government. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created only two years ago in a great splash of publicity. I have with me a letter from the then Secretary of State, who has since been reshuffled, in which he says that the new Department gives him the opportunity
	"to make a real difference to people's lives"—
	a difference that he describes as "enormous and very exciting." He goes on to say that the Department
	"will provide a strong, integrated and permanent voice across Government for effective investment in research, science and skills at all levels".
	This "exciting" and "permanent" addition lasted for only two years, however, and then disappeared in order to gratify Lord Mandelson. It cannot be right for government to be conducted in this way, without recourse to Parliament, without any parliamentary opportunity to debate the practicalities and cost-benefit analysis of such changes. I invite the Leader of the House to give the House the opportunity to discuss how government is arranged, because such changes cannot be made on a whim. There are costs involved and practical consequences, and we should have the opportunity to debate them.
	I note that the only opportunity to discuss the economy next week will be provided by the Opposition. The Government, having given us an assurance every week that there will be such an opportunity, have failed to provide one. However, we need a debate very soon on the prospects for public sector spending. We know now that the Conservatives are committed to 10 per cent. cuts, but we suspect that the Government, too, are committed to cuts in public spending. Would it not be better to have an honest, open and grown-up debate about the prospects for public spending, so that we can actually see what the consequences will be for our public services?
	May we also have a debate on the probation service? Cuts in this area will have a very dangerous effect on our country, and we now know that £120 million is to be cut from the probation service budget by 2012. Probation work is a difficult enough job without the reduction in manpower that will result from that cut. We all know that the probation service is essential to protecting the public, so may we have a debate about what is envisaged?
	I was tempted to ask the former Deputy Leader about my final point in the course of last night's debate, but he is at the Foreign Office now, and therefore does not know the answer, so I will ask the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister has come up with a raft of parliamentary and constitutional reforms from the "committee on public safety", or whatever it is called, which he urges us all now to embrace. Can the Leader of the House give me a clear timetable for implementing those proposals? Unless we implement them as a matter of urgency, the public will not believe these are genuine urgent reforms; they will believe they are simply yet more spin to get the Prime Minister out of a difficult situation.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, too, for his comments about the former Deputy Leader of the House, and I would like to take the opportunity to welcome warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who is going to be an excellent successor to the previous excellent Deputy Leader of the House. On the machinery of government changes, we should all recognise that what will help the economy for the future is having a strong economy based on science, technology, research, manufacturing and higher education. So bringing those all together in a very powerful Department at the heart of central Government, which will work with all the regional development agencies, and with Scotland and Wales, is important. That is what lies behind this new machinery of government.
	As for the economic debate, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that there will be two Opposition day debates on Monday, and they will touch on the economy. There will be a debate on European affairs on Tuesday, which is bound to have the economy as a central issue because the global economic crisis obviously has to be tackled at the European and international level, as well as the national level. One in 10 of the jobs in this country depend on Europe, and he can certainly be confident that for Labour Members the economic dimension will be very much to the fore in the debate that we have scheduled for Tuesday 16 June. In addition, on Wednesday 17 June there will be a debate on the Business Rate Supplements Bill, so what with the Opposition day, and debates on European affairs and on the Business Rate Supplements Bill, enough debate on the economy has been scheduled for next week. If the hon. Gentleman wants, he can suggest a further such debate by way of a topical debate—but I did not think that that was necessary.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned public spending, and he was right to say that the Conservatives have revealed that they would cut it. They have already shown that public spending will have to be cut to pay for their changes to inheritance tax, which help the wealthiest, and for their wish to pay back debt quickly at the expense of cutting public services. They have already said that they want to cut public investment this year and next—right in the middle of a recession. The Government are determined to ensure that we have public investment not only to help us through the recession, but to sustain important public services for the future. Of course we will have to pay back debt, but our choice on tax is to increase the rate for the top rate taxpayers to 50 per cent., rather than to give huge inheritance tax cuts for a few thousand millionaires.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the probation service, and he will doubtless be able to seek to put his questions directly to Justice Ministers at Justice questions next week. There has been a 70 per cent. real-terms increase in probation funding over the past 10 years—

Hon. Members: It has all gone on computers.

David Heath: Computers that don't work.

Harriet Harman: It has not all gone on computers that don't work; there has been an increase of more than one third in the staff, and reoffending rates have dropped.

Denis MacShane: Could we have an early debate on the engineering and steel industry? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and I have asked for an urgent meeting with the First Secretary of State, because although there are some welcome signs of recovery, the lag-time for steel is considerable and orders on the books are down by half. We could be facing a serious situation—there is potential for closures—in the engineering and steel industry. That would mean that as a recovery takes hold we would be importing the steel, which until now has been made in Britain. We need some temporary bridging help, and that should be discussed fully in this House. If it is not, can the Leader of the House urge the First Secretary of State to find time, among all his other responsibilities, to meet my colleagues and me to discuss this vital issue?

Harriet Harman: I certainly will urge the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to meet my right hon. Friend and other Members of Parliament who are concerned about the issues that he has raised. Perhaps we should have a topical debate on the point he makes about the steel industry, and the effect of this situation not only on the constituency and the region that he represents, but on Teesside and the north-east. We have to ensure that we secure our manufacturing base in these difficult times. That is an issue for many Welsh Members of Parliament too, so I will take what he says not only as a request for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but as a suggestion for a topical debate next Thursday.

Greg Knight: Can we have a debate on food labelling? Has the Leader of the House seen the latest report from the Consumers Association, which reveals that a number of sandwiches that are on sale to the public labelled as "healthy" actually contain more salt than nine packets of crisps, and are awash with saturated fat? Should not our law require that salty, fatty rubbish be labelled as such?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman may find the opportunity to raise this issue in the general debate on Thursday 18 June.

Linda Gilroy: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend understands the shock, anger, grief and disbelief of parents, and indeed the whole community of Plymouth, on learning of the arrest earlier this week of a nursery worker and the charges today. The police and social services are clearly offering support, but will she advise me and keep me informed of any appropriate opportunities to raise the issues that will inevitably flow from the concerns of the parents and the community?

Harriet Harman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) may not realise it, but this matter is now sub judice because there has been a charge. It is best that we move on.

Nicholas Winterton: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on family courts, because she will be aware of growing concern about their operation? The judiciary and social services appear to decide the future of children—in some cases, the children have been kidnapped from their natural parents—and there is no opportunity for the parents or the media to cover these particular events. Is it not time that there was justice and fairness for natural parents? Children should not be dealt with in court, behind closed doors and in secret, where only the social services and judiciary have any say and they cannot be held to account.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the family courts are incredibly important. They do decide children's future and make life-changing decisions in respect of parents, especially when they order children to go for adoption or be placed in care. It is because of the importance of their work and of all those who work in them that we have introduced a measure of openness into the family courts. Although we must ensure the anonymity and privacy of children whose detailed family circumstances are being discussed in the courts, it is also important that there should be public confidence that people can see the evidence on which the courts are making those decisions, which is why in the past week or so we have introduced this openness in the family courts, so that people can see that the courts are doing their work fairly and that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done.
	If I could say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made a ruling on this matter. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) is making an argument at the side of the Chair, but let us not take that matter any further. It is not helpful when hon. Members come to the Chair to put the case to me that the Leader of House had something to reply on the matter.  [Interruption.] Order. I am not privy to what the Leader of the House might say, and I must decide what is taken on the Floor of the House and try to make sure that things are properly done.

Harriet Harman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Lady is not going to mention anything about the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, so I take it that that is the end of that matter. I call Mr. Hancock.

Mike Hancock: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 581, in my name and that of 242 other hon. Members on the question of a proper requirement for food labelling, especially regarding chicken?
	 [That this House believes that all chicken meat, including imported chicken meat, should be labelled as to farming method and preferably stocking density; further believes the labelling regulation that requires packs of shell eggs to be labelled as to production method should be extended to chicken meat; congratulates Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Compassion in World Farming on their Chicken Out! campaign calling on supermarkets to introduce labelling as to farming method to allow consumers to make informed choices; notes that most UK chickens are still reared intensively in overcrowded conditions and have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from lameness and heart problems; and calls on the Government to make it a requirement for all chicken producers to meet the conditions of the RSPCA's Freedom Food scheme.]
	When her ministerial colleagues come to the House next Thursday for the debate on food, farming and the environment, will she ask them to introduce proposals to make it a requirement on chicken producers to follow the Freedom Food scheme promoted by the RSPCA to provide proper transparency and an understanding of what people are actually eating when they eat chicken products?

Harriet Harman: As I said to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), there is a debate on food, farming and environment next Thursday. The questions of food labelling, nutritional standards, school meals and healthy diets should perhaps be the subject of a topical debate.

Tony Lloyd: May I urge on my right hon. and learned Friend the argument for a debate on public spending because it is in the interest of the whole country to know where cuts would fall. People in the public sector want to know whether those 10 per cent. of cuts would impact on their jobs, and on education and many other areas. Even people working in private firms dependent on Government contracts need to know how they would be affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) mentioned the steel industry, and that too would be hit by a 10 per cent. cut in public spending. It is important that we tease out where the Opposition parties—not just the Conservative party—stand on public spending, because it will affect people's lives.

Harriet Harman: I will take that as a suggestion for a topical debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that we needed a further debate next week on the economy, and we do have the opportunity of a topical debate. Perhaps we could have a topical debate on the impact on the economy and on public services of future investment in public spending.
	We are clear that every penny of public money invested must be properly spent; that we have to bring the public finances back into balance over the medium and longer term; and that the taxes that should go up should be those on the highest earners. We are determined to protect capital investment in policing, education, health and transport. A 10 per cent. cut in public investment would cause serious concern for those services and all those who work in them. I will look to make that the subject of a topical debate next Thursday, so that the Opposition will have plenty of time to explain to those who depend on the public services how they will withstand 10 per cent. cuts.

George Young: In the Prime Minister's statement yesterday on constitutional renewal, he said that the Government
	"will work with a special parliamentary commission comprising Members from all sides of this House, convened for a defined period to advise on necessary reforms".—[ Official Report, 10 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 797.]
	I welcome that statement. Can the Leader of the House now fill in the details? Who will sit on this new commission, what form will it take and when will it be set up? Is not the need for this commission the final nail in the coffin of the Modernisation Committee?

Harriet Harman: I realise now that I failed to respond to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on the time frame for the announcements that were made by the Prime Minister yesterday. There will be the opportunity for me to bring before the House a resolution that will establish the Committee of the House, made up of—I hope—senior Members who have put a lot of time and effort into these issues, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, so that we can look at many of the proposals that have come, not just from the Modernisation Committee, but from the Procedure Committee and ad hoc groups such as Parliament First. Then we can see whether we can complete this work within a limited time frame, preferably before the House rises for summer. After all, most of these proposals have been knocking around for some time.
	Members of the House need to get together and say what we need to do now to ensure that the House can work more effectively, especially in relation to the choosing and timetabling of non-Government business, especially on e-petitions and on strengthening the integrity and work of Select Committees. We should not hang around: we should make some decisions. It is right that that is not led by the Government, but by a Committee of the House. To facilitate that, I will bring a resolution to the House to set that Committee up.
	I cannot tell the House at this stage how many members the Committee will have or who they will be, because we will have to have discussions on that. However, if hon. Members would like to put themselves forward to be considered for the Committee, they can let me know.
	As for the timeliness of the measures to restore public confidence, the House will know that shortly we will have complete transparency on all the claims made by hon. Members and the allowances paid over the last four years. The House authorities will put those on the website very shortly. That transparency will be reassuring to the public.
	The House will also know, from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, that there will be legislation on a new Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Justice Secretary and I held talks with the leaders of all the other parties yesterday. I hope that we can have the necessary legislation before the House—and conclude all stages—before the House rises for the summer. The public want complete transparency. They also want to see that we are no longer deciding the rules for our allowances and administering them. They want that to be done independently, and that is something on which all the party leaders agree. It is not technical and complicated, so we should just get on and do it.
	The third element of restoring public confidence concerns those occasions on which Members were paid allowances to which they were not entitled and that did not comply with the rules as they were at the time, which might have been the result of a mistake, not wrongdoing. Whatever the reason, those overpayments need to be paid back. The reassessment process will apply to all Members, not just those of a particular party. All claims for the past four years will be considered. The public can then be sure of complete transparency. All the claims will be on the website and there will be a new independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to administer all claims, and money that needs to be paid back will be paid back. We can also improve the way in which this House does business, and in that way we will ensure that the public have the confidence that they are entitled to have in this House of Commons.

Barry Sheerman: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some of the constitutional issues trailed yesterday by the Prime Minister are so fundamentally important that they should be fully debated in this Chamber? As Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, I single out the proposed change to voting age. It is fashionable to think that reducing the voting age to 16 is a brave, new approach, but the implications of becoming an adult at 16, and losing all the protections of "Every Child Matters" and the five outcomes, are very serious. We must not imperil children and truncate childhood without serious deliberation.

Harriet Harman: The argument about the age at which people are entitled to vote is worth having. No one could get the impression from the statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday that a snap decision would be made on that. I have indicated those aspects of the statement on which we want prompt and expedited action, but the Prime Minister also mentioned areas in which further debate is necessary. I know that people have strongly held views on different sides of the argument about voting at 16. I think that there is a strong case for very good citizenship education in schools, and as soon as that is finished, people could come out of the classroom into the polling station. There is an argument for votes at 16. I appreciate that some people do not think so, but no one can seriously argue that giving young people the right to vote at 16 is equivalent to child abuse. We need a sensible debate.

John Bercow: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and in the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday on constitutional renewal, may we please have a debate next week in Government time on the Floor of the House on pre-legislative scrutiny? Given that there is widespread agreement across the parties about the benefits of such scrutiny, but that in the Session 2007-08 only nine of 31 Government Bills were published in draft, would not such a debate allow the Government the opportunity to state whether they agree that in future, pre-legislative scrutiny in the name of better Bills should become the norm rather than the exception?

Harriet Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. We need more scrutiny in advance. The publication of the draft legislative programme is an attempt to ensure that the public can be more involved in the likely legislative process. We need more Bills to be published in draft, but if the time scale is urgent we also need to retain some flexibility for the Government. The ability to publish clauses in draft also exists.
	I agree with the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, although I am not quite sure where his suggestion would come in the process, but I will reflect on that point.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for organising a general debate on European affairs. Can she arrange for the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has been working very hard in the European Councils to try to get an amendment on the extension of copyright for recording artists, to be at that debate? Is she aware that a meeting of COREPER takes place today and that the Czech presidency is abusing its position as president to keep the British proposal to extend copyright to 70 years off the agenda? The Czech presidency is trying to keep it off the agenda for the Council meeting at which the matter should be decided before its presidency ends.
	The work of the British Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills must be commended on getting the issue on to the agenda and on getting it the support of Parliament. Surely we cannot allow subterfuge by the Czech presidency to prevent this matter, which has a majority in Council, from going to Council.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has made a number of important points which I will draw to the attention of the Ministers who will be participating in the European affairs debate next Tuesday.

Julia Goldsworthy: May we have a debate on the effectiveness and accountability of regional development agencies? The Government say that RDAs are key to promoting economic recovery, but this week, the South West of England Regional Development Agency announced tens of millions of pounds-worth of cuts in funding, which means that projects such as dredging the docks in Falmouth, which will safeguard existing jobs and create new jobs, will now not go ahead. Does that not make a mockery of the scrutiny process, as the regional Select Committee will, at best, get to take a look at the decision after it has already happened?

Harriet Harman: The regional Select Committees, in particular—and the regional Grand Committees, when they start their work—will be able to hold the chief executives of RDAs to account for their plans. They will be able to require them to set out their plans and will scrutinise them, especially if the agencies do not stick to those plans or deviate from them in a way that damages the local economy. I do not know whether the hon. Lady plays a part in the regional Select Committee, but hon. Members should not complain about the democratic deficit in terms of the RDAs unless they are prepared to participate in the Select Committees that have been established precisely to hold them to account.

Phyllis Starkey: I have been making complaints on behalf of my constituents for some time about the poor performance of rail services on the section between Milton Keynes and Euston. Those services have been improving but last week there were a series of failures that were the responsibility of Network Rail involving speed restrictions, points failures, loss of signalling and a complete signalling failure, which caused major disruptions. May we have a debate about Network Rail's stewardship of the west coast main line track and its inability to allow the train operators to deliver reliable services for my constituents?

Harriet Harman: I know that this issue affects a number of Members. Indeed, it was raised in last week's business questions. I think it would be a useful subject for a Westminster Hall debate and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on behalf of her constituents in Milton Keynes, because railway services are an important issue for her constituents.

Michael Jack: At its conference yesterday, the NHS Confederation indicated that it believes that, after 2011, the NHS will face the most sustained and severe fall in funding in its history. Given that that is an important ingredient in the requests that have been made for a debate on public expenditure, will the Leader of the House temper her enthusiasm for granting that debate for a moment until the National Audit Office has had a chance to publish an independent report that illustrates what public expenditure actually means—Department by Department—in years two and three of the current public expenditure round? It is clear from what the NHS Confederation says that that is when the Government cuts will bite.

Harriet Harman: Obviously, we consider any reports from the NAO and listen to what is said by the NHS Confederation, but nobody could doubt the Government's commitment to the national health service since 1997. We have made a massive investment in hospitals, clinics and in the training of doctors, dentists and nurses, as well as given a massive commitment to health services across the board, none of which would have happened had the Conservatives remained in power. If public spending is slashed, the people who will suffer will be those who cannot afford to go private. We will protect public services.

Derek Twigg: May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that when we have the debate on public expenditure, we should examine the Tory 10 per cent. cuts, but it is also important that we should have a balanced debate? Does she agree that we should consider the impact of the Government's public expenditure of the past 12 years on constituencies such as mine, which have seen massive investments of capital expenditure on schools, health care facilities, children's centres, nurseries and sports facilities, with a new running track and a massive refurbishment of the library and learning centre in my constituency. Should we not consider the impact on our constituencies of the Government's public expenditure?

Harriet Harman: I will take my hon. Friend's contribution to mean that he adds his weight to the suggestion that we have a debate on the economy, and, in particular, on the effect of capital spending. The important point is that capital spending is not just about jobs, such as those in the construction industry—when the private sector construction has been hard hit, it would be disastrous to cut investment in public capital, which provides jobs—but we also need to continue to invest in education, transport and policing. I shall take his proposals as a suggestion for a topical debate next week.

Eleanor Laing: The Constitutional Renewal Bill was published in draft almost two years ago. It has been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny and over the past year I have asked questions about this on numerous occasions. Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box 12 times and given a reassurance that the Bill would be published soon or imminently. We have been given that answer 12 times in the past year. The Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box again yesterday and told us of his apparent commitment to constitutional renewal, but that will appear to be just another empty promise unless the Leader of the House can give us a firm date for the publication of the Constitutional Renewal Bill and its debate in the House.

Harriet Harman: Hon. Members will know from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that certain additional measures on the constitution will be considered apart from those contained in the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of this House and of the House of Lords. The measures in the Bill will be considered, but they will be accompanied by additional measures, the first of which being the subject of the all-party talks that began yesterday—the setting up of a Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair for only a few minutes, but I have a sense of long questions and answers. If I am to try and get every hon. Member in, I should like to request short, single questions, and, I hope, concise answers. I call Dr. Brian Iddon.

Brian Iddon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At my advice surgery last Saturday, I received two complaints about the behaviour of private parking companies. The more outrageous involved a woman who took a party of children to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in my constituency only to find, when she came out, that a hefty fine had been placed under her windscreen wipers. Similar things are happening across the land, and KFC is particularly prone to complaint. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the matter last week, so please may we have a topical debate so that all hon. Members can bring the complaints to the Floor of the House? In that way, perhaps we can persuade the companies to behave more decently.

Harriet Harman: That might be a good subject for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Andrew MacKay: May I gently put it to the Leader of the House that her excellent critique of the British National party was rather spoiled by the suggestion that the official Opposition opposed the Equality Bill? She knows full well that we put down a reasoned amendment and that, when it failed, we supported giving the Bill a Second Reading. Looking at the business for the next two weeks, may I assure her that she need not be worried about the Postal Services Bill not getting through on Second Reading? It has the full support of those on the Opposition Benches.

Harriet Harman: I do not see how the Opposition can say that they are in favour of the Equality Bill, given that they did not vote for giving it a Second Reading in this House. They voted against it, and proposed an amendment that used the words
	"declines to give the Bill a Second Reading".
	In any language, that means that the Opposition were against it, but I believe that there is more agreement in this House about equality than meets the eye. I do not want the Equality Bill to be one of the big dividing lines between Government and Opposition. I would appreciate it if the Opposition would support it, even though they wanted to decline to give it a Second Reading.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now going to turn to a member of the Chairmen's Panel, who I know will set the House a good example. I call Mr. David Taylor.

David Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we have a ministerial statement on the future of the Forensic Science Service? Restructuring proposals would lead to a third or more of its staff losing their jobs. As we know, the FSS provides a comprehensive, integrated and world-class service in 120,000 cases a year, from crime scene to courtroom. We really must try to protect that skill base, if at all possible.

Harriet Harman: I will ask the new Home Secretary to write to my hon. Friend on that matter.

Evan Harris: I am not only in favour of the Equality Bill, I am in favour of giving it proper scrutiny, including at Report stage in this House. The Leader of the House will know that I welcome the moves by the Prime Minister to reach all-party agreement on how we can programme that scrutiny better. In the meantime, however, will she accept that she is in charge of the Bill and that, when it comes out of the Public Bill Committee and returns to the Floor of the House, it is up to her to ensure that there is enough time to give all the groups of amendments proper scrutiny? I hope that she will give an assurance that there will be proper consultation and enough time to ensure that all those aspects are covered.

Harriet Harman: I certainly want that to be the case. We want to listen to all sides of the House and to have proper scrutiny of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has been entirely consistent in his concern to ensure that amendments brought forward after Committee stage are scrutinised on the Floor of the House. That is really important, and I hope that the Committee under the chairmanship of the Chair of the Public Administration Committee will be able to look into that, as well as the other matters that it has been asked to consider.

Andrew Dismore: May we have an urgent debate on industrial relations in London Underground? It appears that, before the dispute started at 6 pm two nights ago, the union signed an agreement that would have meant the suspension of the strike. Yet, 35 minutes later, members of the management told the union that they had made a phone call and could no longer abide by the agreement that had just been signed. We need a debate to establish exactly who that phone call was made to, as there is a real suspicion that the fingerprints of the Mayor of London are all over the provocation of the dispute. If the Mayor interfered and caused the suspension of the strike to be lifted, I think hon. Members ought to be made aware of that.

Harriet Harman: We want the Mayor of London to play his part in bringing all sides together to make sure that the backbone of London's transport network is working properly for Londoners. We need a proper public transport system, not megaphone diplomacy or soundbites from any side.
	I know that I must try to keep my answers as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I think that the fact of the matter is that George Alagiah was not born in England.

Julian Lewis: Next week, Government and Opposition peers will have a free vote on a clause inserted by this House into the Political Parties and Elections Bill that gives candidates in general elections the option of having their full home address on ballot papers—which is what happens at present—or to have their constituency address there instead. True to form, however, the Liberal Democrats in the upper House are imposing a three-line Whip against the clause. They say that they are doing so on the grounds that they want this House to have a better opportunity to debate the matter. If the clause comes back to this House, will the Government guarantee that we will have time to debate it and vote on it again, if necessary?

Harriet Harman: We will of course try to make sure that all the issues involved are properly debated when the Bill comes back to this House.

Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will share my concern and disappointment that flying the flags of the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies at the trooping the colour ceremony has once again been ignored. I refer her to early-day motion 1644:
	 [ That this House looks forward to the 2009 Trooping the Colour ceremony on Saturday 13 June to mark the Official Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; notes with pride that the flags of all the nations of the Commonwealth are always displayed in and around Horse Guards Parade for this great occasion; and calls on the Government to ensure that the flags of all Her Majesty's Territories are also flown in time for the ceremony, including Her Majesty's Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, together with Her Majesty's Overseas Territories of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Ocno Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cuhna, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. ]
	Will she ensure that the Minister responsible for this great British occasion makes sure that the flags are flown and that we respect all our British territories, as well as countries in the Commonwealth?

Harriet Harman: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the responsible Minister.

Andrew Selous: I was very pleased that the Child Poverty Bill received its First Reading today. Will the Leader of the House say when Second Reading will be, and can she assure me that we will not read anything about the Bill in the papers before Members have had a chance to pick it up from the Vote Office tomorrow?

Harriet Harman: There has been extensive consultation and discussion already about the Bill to tackle child poverty, as well as statements about its contents. There is a distinction between statements and Bills. If a Secretary of State or a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, Members of the House do not expect to hear the contents of that statement on the radio or television beforehand, with TV and radio interviewers being the first to ask questions. When there is a statement, the first people to ask questions must be Members of this House, but the publication of Bills and consultation papers is a different issue.

Philip Davies: May we have an urgent debate on immigration and political correctness? I represent an area where a British National party MEP was elected, and I suggest that people voted for that party not because they endorse its nasty breed of politics but because they are frustrated that the mainstream political parties do not appear to be addressing their legitimate concerns. The way to take on the BNP is not to hire a rent-a-mob to throw eggs at its members and jostle them when they make public statements, but to address the issues that are leading so many people to vote for the party out of frustration, even though that is misguided.

Harriet Harman: Throughout history and across Europe, people's fears about their jobs and their standard of living has always provided an opportunity for far-right parties to stir up apprehension. That is why we are so determined to step in. We will not just say that the recession should take its course, or that unemployment is a price worth paying, and we do not accept that people who lose their jobs will lose their house. Instead, we will provide real help for people in tough times and make sure that we take every action that we can to tackle the problems of the global economic crisis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no place in British national life or in our democracy for a party that excludes people because of the colour of their skin.

Peter Bone: Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is closing a hospital outpatients facility in my constituency and moving it to a small town in another constituency. The matter will come before the local planning committee. The chief executive of the trust has said that unless the planning committee approves the proposal, it is likely that the whole scheme will be dropped. May we have a debate on the accountability of the chief executives of NHS foundation trusts who clearly try to blackmail a planning committee?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps that is something that I should draw to the attention of Health Ministers, and perhaps they could write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on the future of the distribution industry? Cities such as Milton Keynes are, because of their geographical location, traditionally the home of many such companies. Unfortunately, as a result of rising fuel and vehicle duty, many of those companies are struggling. For example, this week, TK Maxx in Milton Keynes closed its distribution centre, with the loss of 275 jobs, and moved it to Poland. What does it say about the policies of this Government when companies feel that they have to move their businesses to Poland, rather than stay in Milton Keynes?

Harriet Harman: One of the most important tasks of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is to make sure that we get the right climate to enable businesses of all sizes—large, medium and small—to survive, make it through the downturn, and flourish in this country, and to have a more prosperous future.

Points of Order

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members convened this morning at 8.55 am to attend the Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee to consider the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2009. The Committee was abandoned and cancelled at very short notice—at 5 minutes to 6 o'clock last night—causing inconvenience not only to us but more especially to staff, who travelled long distances in desperate circumstances today, during the tube strike. Much more worrying to the wider public is the fact that the amending regulations—

Stephen O'Brien: They are very important.

Anne McIntosh: Yes, and they are due to take effect on 7 July. The regulations are hugely out of date; they should have been brought into force on 1 May 2008. No explanation was given for the cancellation of the Committee; we were told that it was due to unforeseen circumstances. That means that businesses have extremely short notice of the need to implement the provisions, which, as I say, are due to come into effect on 7 July. The cost is estimated to be £95.7 million to businesses, charities and voluntary bodies, and £2 million to the public sector.
	I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to ask the Leader of the House, while she is in the Chamber, when we can expect the regulations to come before the House. We are prepared to consider them and give them proper scrutiny, but it is unacceptable for the Committee to have been cancelled at the shortest possible notice. I am sure that many hon. Members, and the staff who were asked to assist us in considering the regulations, were not made aware of the cancellation. It is unacceptable to cancel at such short notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I regret it if inconvenience was caused to Members and staff in the way that the hon. Lady described. I am conscious of the fact that, through a typographical error in documentation, another Committee of the House had a slight mishap in its timings, but the situation was not as drastic as that which she described. As to the substance of her point, I am sure that she understands that I cannot rule on that from the Chair, but she has had the opportunity to put her point on the record. Perhaps, if she was seeking an answer from the Leader of the House, her point might have been better put as a question during business questions. However, she has made her point. The Leader of the House may seek to pursue the matter through a point of order, but I am unable to make any ruling.

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) had given me a bit of notice, and had asked a question in business questions, I would have sought the opportunity to answer her question. I am not able to give her the precise answer that she needs now, but I will look into the matter. If it appears to be helpful to do so, the Deputy Leader of the House or I might pop up with a point of order later, so that the House can know what the position is regarding that Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that we can do better than that.

BILL PRESENTED

Child Poverty Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Stephen Timms, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ed Balls, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Mr. Liam Byrne, Jim Knight, Dawn Primarolo, Helen Goodman and Kitty Ussher, presented a Bill to set targets relating to the eradication of child poverty, and to make other provision about child poverty.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 112) with explanatory notes (Bill 112-EN).

Carers

[Relevant documents:  The Fourth Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2007-08, HC  485-I, o n Valuing and Supporting Carers , and the Government's response, First  Special Report of the Committee, Session 2008-09, HC 105 .]
	 Topical debate

Phil Hope: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of carers.
	I am pleased to open this debate on carers during national carers week. The way we look after people with care and support needs defines us as a society. Everyone, at some point in their lives, will know and love someone who needs care. Many of us will need care ourselves, for whatever reason. It is an indication of the strength of our society that every day, between 5 million and 6 million people care for their family members. They do an incredible job, often giving up a huge amount to care for someone they love. Carers are not a group separate from the rest of society—they are society.
	Through the 10-year carers strategy, which, as some hon. Members will remember, we launched almost exactly a year ago today, the Government want all carers to be universally recognised and valued as being fundamental to strong families and stable communities. That is the unifying vision for the future of our long-term strategy. We want support that is tailored to meet an individual's needs. We want carers to be able to care for the ones whom they love and still enjoy a life of their own. We demand recognition that both carers and the cared for are full and equal citizens.
	We have a lot to do before we realise that vision but, one year on, we are on our way. One person who will help us to realise that vision is the chair of the standing commission on carers. I am delighted to announce to the House that Dr. Philippa Russell has been appointed to that role. I want to place on record my thanks to her and all members of the commission for the work that they are doing to develop, implement and monitor the strategic vision, alongside the cross-Government programme board that has been established, and of course the inter-ministerial group, which I chair.
	I want to begin by recognising the particular contribution and needs of young carers. We have a special duty to support young carers and to protect them from excessive caring burdens and inappropriate caring roles. As part of our £75-million Think Family programme to support all families at risk, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has set up six extended family pathfinders for young carers. The Department of Health is supporting those pathfinders to test how we can better support families with young carers. We believe that young people who have caring responsibilities for a family member should not be denied the right to enjoy their childhood, and to grow up like every other child.
	Yesterday, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is the Minister with responsibility for disability, I met carers in Islington and Camden at the official launch of the new website and telephone helpline for carers, Carers Direct, which I will say more about in a moment. One of the concerns that people there raised was the lack of awareness of the needs of carers among the host of different organisations and individuals whom they encounter in the health service and on local councils. I agree with them that it is important that professionals and others who offer support for carers do so while understanding their needs. That is why, over the next two years, Skills for Care and Skills for Health will develop a range of new training programmes and awareness-raising modules about carers for those professionals. We have also commissioned the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop training for GPs, based on the new action guide for primary care, to help GPs better understand carers' needs.

Fraser Kemp: Of course we all welcome training for professionals in the field. In common with many other hon. Members, I met some carers in my constituency on Friday. One of the issues that came up was training for carers, not the professionals. One constituent said that she had gone on a training course that had dealt with the particular complex issues affecting her son. She said that she could not express of what huge benefit that was to her in understanding his condition and disability. I know that some research projects are going on, but I ask the Minister to consider training for carers as well as professionals.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. I will say more about it in a moment. I know that he is a real champion for carers in his constituency. We have a training programme, which I shall say more about later, called Caring with Confidence, which is not for professionals; it is for carers, and is delivered by carers, which I think is quite unique. That is extra work that we are doing. He is right to highlight the issue, and we are responding directly to the concerns that he raises on behalf of his constituents.
	It is really important that GPs understand the additional help that there is for carers, so that when a carer goes to them with health needs, they not only help to meet those requirements but signpost—refer—the carer to other sources of support in their area.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister referred to extended family pathfinders, and I was waiting for a little more expansion on that theme, but he moved on rather quickly. Will he explain how the scheme will be co-ordinated? Will its co-ordination be the function of health services, social services, education or GPs?

Phil Hope: I shall happily write to the hon. Lady to give her those further details. The pathfinders scheme operates through the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Its purpose is to look at the needs of families—as a whole—that are in stress or in areas of disadvantage, which find it difficult to get through life as a family and have complicated caring arrangements and responsibilities, and to understand what works when building a package of support around a family. We want to pilot and test those things in different settings—rural, urban and so on—so that we can understand what families need. However, I shall write to her to detail where they are, how they are funded and so on, so that she understands those points.

Anne Main: I thank the Minister for giving way on the point about support care packages, because one of my constituents sadly died after a support package was not put in place. Mr. Tonkin starved himself to death in a care home while waiting to return to his family. It took more than five months to begin putting a care package together, but still it never came together, despite the family wishing to support Mr. Tonkin's return to his own home. I therefore caution the Minister, because introducing new structures might sound very good, but we currently have structures—in terms of carers and care packages—that are not working.

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on a particular case, because I do not know the details. However, I do know that we have to do both: drive up the standards of residential and domiciliary care throughout the country. I am therefore delighted that the Government have given not only ordinary grants to local authorities, but an additional £520 million to help the process of transforming social care and raising the quality of care throughout the country. Responsibility for the quality of care rests with the Care Quality Commission, which conducts inspections of care homes and others who might provide the care to which she refers.
	There is also a separate complaints process in place, which the hon. Lady—on behalf of her constituents and, indeed, the family of her constituent—can use, particularly in respect of local authorities, if an individual has not received the care that would be expected. She can use the complaints process to take the matter forward.

Anne Main: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Hope: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady, although the debate is moving on.

Anne Main: I should not like to leave the Minister with the wrong impression that the care home was at fault; it was the inability to put a care package together, through the Department for Children, Schools and Families, so that the family could have Mr. Tonkin go home. The care home itself treated him very well, apparently. I do not wish to leave the Minister with the impression that it was a poor care home.

Phil Hope: I am grateful for that clarification.
	I shall move on to respite care, because we know that caring for someone can be hard. Six out of 10 carers say that the biggest thing that we can do to help them is to give them a break. That message was repeated by the carers whom I met at Centre 404 in Islington yesterday. Since we introduced the carers grant in 1999, more than £1 billion has been provided to councils to do just that. The grant is worth £240 million this year and will increase to £256 million next year. It includes £25 million a year for councils to respond immediately to carers who are in a crisis and can no longer care for their loved one. Encouraging the national health service to recognise that support for carers is as much an issue for it as it is for local councils and social care, so we have allocated an additional £150 million to primary care trusts between 2009 and 2011 to work with their local authority partners to provide personalised breaks for carers.

Ann Clwyd: My constituency has a very high percentage of disabled people, because of past industrial disease, and a very high percentage of elderly people. Many carers are being short-changed by an outdated benefits system, which simply does not recognise the enormous contribution that carers make to looking after people who need them to stay at home and give up their jobs in order to assist them. What does my hon. Friend have to say on that point?

Phil Hope: I shall come on to allowances and benefits in a few moments, but my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is a concern about whether the combination of allowances and benefits works in the best way, because it is a complicated system. Whatever the processes are for reviewing, developing and reforming that process, however, right here and now help is at hand, because individuals can go to the new website that I have described, look at the benefits system and allowances, see what they qualify for and ensure that they get all their entitlements to help them get through the situation.

Derek Wyatt: I thank the Minister for this morning seeing the Swale carers group, whose members are listening in the Gallery. If we included Skype on that website, we could connect carers and enable them to talk to each other and share their experiences. It is the isolation that they feel most of all. Will that provision be on the site?

Phil Hope: I did enjoy meeting, just before the debate, the Swale carers group, whose members are here to—I hope—listen to and take back messages from the House about the support that is available for carers. Carers Direct, the new website, has an interactive facility, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that people feel isolated. I do not know whether many carers blog, but there is a blogging facility on the site. People can literally type in their thoughts, feelings and problems, and watch and listen to other people with similar problems and share information. That facility will break down the barriers for many people who feel isolated in the very important role that they carry out.

Paul Burstow: The Minister talked about NHS funding and £150 million that has been allocated over two years, but will he say more about how carers and others will be able to track how it is spent in order to assure themselves that their primary care trusts allocate it and spend it on carers' needs?

Phil Hope: I know that the hon. Gentleman, speaking as a Liberal Democrat, is fully supportive of devolution and of devolving responsibility for resources and decision making to a local level. He will know that the additional £150 million that we have put into PCT budgets, although not ring-fenced, is for the purpose to which he referred. Part of his responsibilities as a local MP, along with those of carers, might be to ensure that the local primary care trust understands the needs of carers, does the job that it should be doing to assess people's needs and ensures that it allocates from its budget the money that the Government have allocated to it to support carers in the area. I hope that he works with local carers to ensure as much—and, indeed, that every Member works with local carers to ensure that local primary care trusts and authorities carry out proper needs assessments and the proper development of programmes and policies to support carers, who do such a fantastic job throughout the country.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. He mentioned, in addition to health service funding, funding to local authorities. My constituents in Wiltshire will be slightly baffled by that, however, because the county is at the very bottom of the league table for revenue support grant to local authorities. Will he therefore say a little more about how the extra funding has been distributed among local authorities, and the formula that has been used?

Phil Hope: I do not have the facts and figures about the hon. Gentleman's particular local authority, but I know that local authorities have had a record 45 per cent. increase in Government funding in real terms over the past 12 years. As a result, local authorities have improved dramatically the quality of a whole range of services in their areas. In addition, the carers grant that I mentioned has been distributed to local authorities. I do not have the figures on how much his local authority has received, but I assure him that it will have had some. I hope that he will put pressure on his local authority, which is almost certainly controlled by members of his own party, to ensure that it gives to local carers the priority that we expect in its assessment and delivery of services, and that it makes the right choices to provide resources to the most vulnerable and caring people in our society.
	We want innovation to be at the heart of everything that we do for carers, so, as part of the carers strategy, we are setting up 24 sites to test, demonstrate and evaluate good practice in support for carers. That action will improve outcomes for carers and provide value for money, and the sites will look at health and well-being checks for carers, breaks for carers and how the NHS can better support them.
	Yesterday, on the first anniversary of the carers strategy, we launched Carers Direct, which will give people from all backgrounds—young, old and those with disabilities—access to the information and advice that they need. They will be able to support and talk to each other through the website.

Fraser Kemp: With the best will in the world, Members of Parliament will have met, and national carers week will have involved meetings with, a minuscule number of carers. Millions of carers out there have a sense of isolation because of the 24/7 nature of the caring that they do. Any investment in technology that will link and bring people together, so that they can get over the sense of isolation, is great. Furthermore, can Members of Parliament have information so that through our local press we can try to make people aware of the issues? Carers often live in isolated conditions.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those people—I shall not stereotype them—who find it less easy to access websites, there is also a telephone helpline. Anyone can ring that and get direct, face-to-face—or mouth-to-mouth—contact, so that they can discuss their needs.  [Interruption.] I am not sure that I got the phrasing right there; never mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you know what I meant.
	The helpline, as well as the website, is important. We need to break down people's isolation. Carers need advice. We know that the system is complicated and that people do not understand the benefits and allowances available to them. They may not know what is available in their areas. If they get on the website or use the helpline, they can find out more and access the support that they need to do their job better and reduce the sense of isolation mentioned by my hon. Friend.
	A comprehensive strategy goes far wider than the remit of the Department of Health, so we are working across Government to improve the lives and conditions of carers. Like other constituency MPs, I regularly meet carers and take up their individual concerns in my own constituency. I have had the privilege of meeting lots of carers this week, as part of carers week. One subject that has continually come up is carers benefits. The Government accept that we have to look again at that issue. I remind the House, however, that we have already given a lot of support. Last year, for example, we provided nearly £1.5 billion in carer's allowance to support carers. That, along with the carer's premium and other income-related benefits, forms a vital part of the financial package of support for carers.
	For carers who work or want to work, the Department for Work and Pensions has increased the amount that someone can earn while still receiving carer's allowance, from £50 a week in 2001 to £95 a week now—one of the highest earning limits of any benefit. Given the complexities of the benefit system for pensioners, we have also taken steps to simplify the claiming process for pensioners who are carers—they might, for example, qualify for the carer's premium in pension credits.
	We need to do more. Even now, as I discuss pension credits, allowances and benefits, I know that people will worry about the complexity. Last December's welfare reform White Paper reaffirmed our commitment to look carefully at carers benefits. We do not want to make the benefits system even more complex; frankly, carers' lives are complicated enough already. That is why the Department wants to make any changes to benefits not only in the context of the social care system, but alongside its wider ambitions for welfare reform, so that the changes lead to a long-lasting and tailored system of support.
	For many carers, there is more to life than simply fulfilling their caring responsibilities. If carers want to work, we want to help them do so. We want to step in, not step aside. Let us give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Minister has used up his time allocation. He has been generous in allowing interventions, but time has been added for that.

Stephen O'Brien: It is good to have this opportunity to debate the issues affecting carers across the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to all those who care for relatives and friends. It is a taxing and often thankless task, and it is right that the House should pay tribute to them. Well over 200 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed early-day motions 1519 and 1355 in support of carers week. That stands as our debt of gratitude.
	I also pay tribute to the organisations that support carers, particularly Carers UK, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, the countless local support groups and the online carers' chat rooms and information sources, which are increasingly important for mutual support—a point made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) a moment ago. I pay tribute also to all those involved in organising carers week. That it is now in its 14th year is testament to its effectiveness in highlighting carers' concerns and needs.
	According to Carers UK, there are about 6 million carers in the UK and more than three in five people will become carers at some time in our lives. I was interested that the Minister said yesterday in the departmental press release that there were only 5 million carers, as opposed to the 6 million identified in the 2001 census. Have the Government done a recalculation? If so, will the Minister put into the Library evidence of how many carers there are? Perhaps he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to cover that point.
	Too often, carers bear the brunt of inadequate provision of care and support. They are among those who are suffering the most because there has been prevarication on reform, not least on the part of the Government. Help the Aged and others have called for carers to be supported as an integral part of the care and support system. I am sure that other hon. Members will speak in more detail about the Select Committee report. It is one of the indicative issues of this debate that a Department of Health Minister and his shadow should be leading the discussion on a Department for Work and Pensions report—a report that certainly has ramifications for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Cabinet Office, among other Departments. It is important to note that the health and well-being of carers rightly dominate the concerns and focus of carers and those for whom they care.
	The report can be condensed into two main areas. The first is soft support for carers—inclusion in Government policy across the board, information services and so on. The second is discussion of carers' wages and benefits and the issues faced by carers who are in employment. That raises pertinent questions of the Minister about where we are up to on the carers strategy. We want not a list of pledges, but a list of what has been done to date. One specific issue is whether primary care trusts are actually using the money provided for emergency-only respite care for the purpose for which it was intended. Will the Minister clarify that point, which relates to what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said a moment ago?
	The Government are very good at dragging their feet on such pledges. Yesterday, the Minister announced a hotline for carers in Islington. Carers had called for that and welcomed it, but it was first promised in the 1999 carers strategy, on almost the same day as I first entered the House following a by-election. The hotline was reannounced in the updated strategy and was supposed to have been in place early this year. The House will be aware that the Government have been similarly slow in setting up the national flu helpline—a key part of their pandemic flu plan. What confidence can anyone have in a Government who take 10 years to set up a phone line?
	Last year, the Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for Health trailed a carers' wage in the press before the publication of the strategy. Will the Minister confirm that that, in the end, was just more spin? It only ever referred to an extension of direct payments to spending on carers—and not even that has happened. Obviously, the biggest step forward for carers will be reform in the long-term care system. The Government's financial squeeze has led to rising eligibility criteria at the local level, and too often carers bridge the gap. So I ask the Minister again: in carers week, of all weeks, and before spring technically ends in a few days' time on 21 June, where is the Green Paper that the Government have categorically promised and guaranteed?
	For 11 years, the Government have ignored a particular issue. Tony Blair told the 1997 Labour party conference that he did not want his children to grow up in a country where people had to sell their houses to fund their long-term care. Since then, we have had the Wanless report from the King's Fund, in 2006. We also had a "zero-based review", announced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) in response to the Wanless report in 2006, but there is no evidence of any serious work having been done on it.
	The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) said in the House that he thought that the comprehensive spending review 2008 would deliver a solution. The CSR announced a Green Paper, to be preceded by a consultation on the future of care and support. A Green Paper is, by definition, a consultation too. That Green Paper was due in early 2009, March 2009, spring 2009, and June 2009. Can the Minister confirm that the timetable in the departmental plan is now—surprise, surprise—summer 2009: that is, by September?
	Next week, we will be taking the Health Bill through its Committee stage. I was pleased that Lord Darzi, under pressure from his peers, amended the Bill to add carers as a group who must be consulted on the NHS constitution. I was astounded by that omission and the neglect on the part of the Government. The Bill currently defines carers as
	"persons who, as relatives or friends, care for other persons to whom NHS services are being provided".
	That seems a somewhat draconian contraction by the Government of the definition of a carer already inscribed in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which has the broader definition of
	"people who care for service users as relatives or friends",
	with no other qualification. Why are the Government seeking to reduce the statistics on carers?

Jeremy Wright: In support of my hon. Friend's case, does he think that part of the problem is the dissonance between what the Government say about the importance of carers and the fact that carers' interests tend to slip so regularly off the Government's priority agenda?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs, admirably and with great credit from both sides of the House, the all-party group on dementia, which has a major read-across to all the concerns of carers. He is right. It is no good to lay out so many expectations across the board, particularly for people in hard-working and sensitive areas such as caring, only for them to be dashed when the rhetoric does not convert into action. One of the greatest challenges that we face as politicians is to hold the Government to account on the expectations that they have raised.
	I want briefly to touch on the subject of young carers. It was, to say the least, slightly concerning that although the Health Committee discussed young carers in its report, the Government's written response completely omitted to mention them. The Minister must have realised the Government's embarrassment about that, because he briefly alluded to young carers in his opening remarks. I hope that that embarrassment will now be covered by the Government making a specific acknowledgement that they need to address the issue of young carers in a written document whereby they can be held to account. They may therefore need to issue an addendum to their response.
	The 2001 census found that there were approximately 175,000 young carers in the UK, although that figure is believed to be higher by those who work in the field and see things for themselves. The average age of young carers is an absolutely shocking 12 years old. One in three regularly misses school, and one in four has no external support whatever. That has led to tragedies such as that of Deanne Asamoah. When will the Government take action? Following the Minister's acknowledgement that the needs of young carers must be addressed, given their absence from the Government's response, we need to move from words to a good set of actions that can be implemented and will support young carers.
	It is right for the House to be debating issues facing carers. They are, as those involved in carers week have put it, a "secret service", so it is right that this House should do all it can to bring them out of the shadows, and that the Government should do all they can to support them. Conservative Members thank carers for the sacrifices that they make in order to improve the lives of others and their loved ones, and recognise that helping carers is one of the best ways to help those they are caring for. Most importantly, we join with third party organisations in calling on the Government to publish the Green Paper on care and support without any further delay. Only in the debate about reform can carers begin to hope for a system that does not let them down. If, as seems increasingly likely, the Government cannot get beyond the stasis of a divided and leaderless party, for the sake of carers and all those in our society who need help, the Minister should urge the Prime Minister to call a general election.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who are hoping to catch your eye. I come to the debate to represent several of my constituents who are carers or who work for caring organisations.
	In responding to my earlier intervention, the Minister referred to the need for MPs to play a part in ensuring that the NHS spends the £150 million that has been allocated over the next two years wisely and well in order properly to meet the needs of carers. I can assure him that in my area not only am I well in touch with carers, but carers make sure that I am in touch with their concerns. We have a very effective carers' centre run by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which has now been there for more than 20 years. It was opened in the 1980s, as probably one of the first of its kind to be established, and it is highly regarded by all the carers who have been through its doors over all those years.
	My reason for speaking is to convey to the Minister and Members in the House several comments that were made to me by carers at an event that I attended yesterday as part of carers week. I invited them to put their comments in writing. They particularly feature carers' concerns about the inadequacy of the benefits regime that relates to the carer's allowance and so on. There is a strong sense that this issue is well overdue for attention. It has been the subject of plenty of reports from Government, yet they are still not addressing it. Ken Fish, a carer in my constituency, asked:
	"Why should Carer's Allowance be stopped when the carer receives old age pension at 60 for women and 65 for men, when carers are entitled to Carer's Allowance for caring for more than 35 hours per week and when the same carers have paid National Insurance Contributions or have had credits paid for them when they are continuing to care as both they and their cared for get older, frailer and less mobile?"
	That is at the heart of many of the representations that I am sure will be received by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Margaret Burrows said:
	"Older people that are carers need more help and support to continue in their caring role. No age restrictions for receiving Carer's Allowance. I feel unappreciated by society for being a carer, in particular for those carers caring for someone with mental health problems."
	Another carer I met at the coffee morning, Pat Rogerson, said that she received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions saying that she was entitled to the carer's allowance, but when she read on a little further she found that the next paragraph said that she could not get the carer's allowance because she was getting a pension. She asks why a letter like that is sent, and why she is not being paid the carer's allowance. June Baine, Rhona Banford, Jill Winder and Christine Holmes also want that question answered.
	Although the Minister was helpful in explaining the complexities of the current system, he did not go on to say either of two things: that the Government honestly do not believe that this is a financial priority and feel that it cannot be afforded at this time—that would be the straightforward thing for him to say—or that there is a timetable by which the level of the carer's allowance will be raised and its eligibility extended, so that pensioners, who often shoulder some of the greatest burdens of carers, will get proper recognition in the payments that they receive.

Jeremy Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot afford not to do something about this issue? If carers decided—I am sure that very few of them would wish to do so—that they could no longer shoulder such burdens, and the state was asked instead to do the work that they do unpaid, we would end up with a very much greater liability on the taxpayer.

Paul Burstow: It is estimated that our 6 million carers are worth £87 billion in the burden that they shift from our public services—both social care and the health service. Taking on that responsibility affects their physical and financial health in the long term. We know from the statistics that were published during last year's national carers week that many carers find that by the time they have finished their caring role, their earnings potential has been diminished and their savings have been run down, and they feel let down as a consequence.
	It is good to have a national strategy that outlines many aspirations, which will be shared by everyone in this House and beyond it, but setting ambitions for 2018 makes them seem an awfully long time away. The message that I have heard from carers who are caring today is that they cannot wait for those ambitions to be realised by 2018, or for the carer's allowance to be raised at some point in the future. Can the Minister therefore guarantee that the Government will shortly set out a timetable for the very necessary reform of the carer's allowance?
	I wonder also whether the Minister could say a little more about the time scale for the roll-out of the national strategy. It is not entirely clear what the milestones are and how carers on the ground can satisfy themselves about the strategy and hold people to account locally for delivering it. At the event that I attended yesterday, Lorraine Brown said that better services for carers of young people and for the cared-for, such as younger people with dementia, were particularly important. All too often, dementia services for people who become senile at an early age are inadequate. They are often put with older people suffering from dementia, in a setting entirely inappropriate for them. More needs to be done to cater for that group, and that is certainly a concern that Lorraine Brown has.
	Jackie Ure wanted to make the point yesterday that carers have a sense of struggle and of navigating their way through a complex system. All too often there is no one there to guide them, hold their hand and support them until they turn up at the door of the carers centre in Sutton, where that support is provided. That situation is replicated up and down the country, with people waiting for an assessment, battling to get the right care plan implemented and then ensuring that the financial assessments do not financially cripple the individual concerned. All those matters make caring a burden that it should not be. It is a burden that people willingly take on, and we should not be making it worse through the systems that we construct around people.
	I have not spoken at great length today, but I wanted to represent my constituents who willingly shoulder that burden for children, loved ones, husbands, wives and others. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance about what will happen in respect of the carer's allowance, and some sense that he understands that it is not good enough for him to say to MPs simply that we have to hold our local PCTs to account. He has a responsibility to ensure that PCTs put their money where their mouth is and deliver for carers.

Anne McGuire: Like other Members, I welcome this debate, particularly as it is happening during carers week. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister, who met the all-party carers group a few weeks ago. As someone who this year has been designated the parliamentary champion for carers, I was delighted to join that meeting. The Prime Minister over the past two years, and his predecessor, have given carers great support and started to put carers issues higher up the political agenda. All political parties now recognise them as an important focus for social policy.
	I was delighted to be invited by a consortium of 10 organisations to be this year's parliamentary champion, and to host yesterday's reception in the Commons. I am delighted that so many MPs attended that reception to hear for themselves, in an informal way, some of the issues that have an impact on carers' lives. We should pay tribute to the many organisations up and down the country that have participated in this week's events. As I understand it from the consortium that Carers UK pulled together, more than 1,000 partner organisations are celebrating the contribution that carers make to our society and taking the opportunity to highlight the issues and continue the pressure on Government, and indeed on all political parties, to ensure that we do not lose momentum in improving the lives of carers.
	In my constituency the Princess Royal Trust for Carers held its own event yesterday, which was linked with its annual general meeting. I had hoped to attend, but obviously yesterday's parliamentary business made that impossible. I pay particular tribute to the Stirling Princess Royal Trust for Carers for the work that it does, particularly in supporting young carers. Many of us recognise that all sorts of fairly young children take on responsibilities way above their age level, which they should not be asked to do. I do not want us to say to children, "Of course you can't participate in the care of a parent or sibling," but we must ensure that those children's needs and rights are not neglected as they absorb caring responsibilities that they should not have to take on. The trust in Stirling certainly does a lot of good work in that area.
	Over the past 10 years, as I said, carers issues have come up the political agenda, and we should pay tribute to this Government. In 1999, the first ever carers strategy was developed. Although it was 10 years ago, we should not lose sight of that. It was the first time that any Government had actually recognised that serious needs were being neglected. As the Minister said, the new strategy published last year built on that first strategy but recognised that times had moved on, and carers' interests and issues are perhaps better articulated now than they were in 1999. Indeed, the pressure groups on carers issues have built on that first recognition in 1999.
	I met representatives of the Swale carers group this morning, as did the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) was very keen to encourage his local carers group to engage not just with the Minister but with me. One thing that came out of that discussion, and which is embedded in the new carers strategy, was the fact that carers need to be respected as expert care partners. Often they are marginalised by health professionals, not because the health professionals are bad people but because they do not see the carers who are with a sick or disabled person day in and day out. Somehow when it comes to big decisions that need to be made, they feel marginalised.
	One woman told me this morning that when she moved from one PCT area to another, there was a different attitude to her involvement. In the first area she was very much part of the team, but when she moved house to another PCT area she found that she was totally excluded. Confidentiality clauses were somehow brought into the discussion, and she was not allowed to be a full participant.

Jeremy Wright: I am sure that the right hon. Lady was as encouraged as I was to hear the Minister talk earlier about the training of those professionals and helping them understand more about the role that carers play. I am sure that she hopes, as I do, that that training will involve an understanding of how to respect the experience and understanding that carers develop about the people they care for, so that what she has just described happens rather less often.

Anne McGuire: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I recognise, however, that there is sometimes tension between the right of carers to know things and the individual right of a sick or disabled person not to allow anybody else to know their private medical business. That is difficult to manage, and the group this morning recognised that those are fine distinctions. Somebody said to me that we need to get rid of the grey areas, but I say to the Minister that sometimes the grey areas actually help in managing that delicate balance of rights and responsibilities between carers and the individual sick or disabled person who is being cared for. We need to be careful that we do not over-structure such relationships, because we could end up in a slightly worse situation. However, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady was making an interesting point, just before she answered the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), about how both the cared-for and the carers are experts in the care required. Given that the Health Bill is about to go into Committee, and that some of the clauses that we will consider deal with direct payments—I rather hope that the hon. Lady will be asked to serve on that Committee—may I ask here whether any of her discussions this morning helped her to see that the extension of direct payments is one way in which those experts in their own care can have better control over the care that they receive? Did she think about how we might consider extending those direct payments?

Anne McGuire: In my previous role I helped pilot individual budgets, which build on the direct payments experience, so I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am keen that that sort of control should be implemented. We can call it a personalisation agenda, or independence, choice and control, but I know that the Government are also keen on it so that individuals can make decisions about their own lives. The hon. Gentleman may not have made the point explicitly, but his intervention implies that he believes that such a step means that people will be recognised as the real experts on managing their own lives, whether they are sick or disabled people, or carers.
	I hope that we all recognise that the carers strategy reflects some of the issues that have been brought to the attention of many of us in the past week, and in recent years. They include the inappropriateness of young children being the principal carers in a family. I know from my conversations with the Minister that he is keen to ensure that that is tackled as soon as possible.
	Another element that we should never forget is that carers should have a life of their own. It is sometimes easy to put people into little boxes; that ticks other little boxes further down the line. However, carers need the space and capacity to lead their own lives. That can mean working, which involves tricky balancing. I have some personal experience, with my sisters, of trying to balance care for my mother, who was dying, with our work commitments. Carers also need time to enjoy themselves and to do things that keep them connected to their own social networks, as opposed to always being part of somebody else's network. We should not lose sight of that.
	I hope that the Minister accepts that the importance of the strategy was reinforced by the publication of figures this week by Carers UK. They show that 86 per cent. of people in this country believe that carers make a valuable contribution to society; indeed, they are only just behind nurses and firefighters. That reflects very well on the way in which that organisation has pushed the issue up the agenda. The figures also show that the overwhelming majority of people believe that benefits are too low, and that 74 per cent. of carers have reached breaking point as a result of pressure—often the pressure of trying to work their way through bureaucracy. Somebody described that to me as like trying to swim through treacle. I shall not elaborate on that: it conjures up an image of what it must be like to try to tend to and support someone, yet find that there is no one-stop shop and no single route to getting help. I welcome the Minister's comments about trying to make that route easier.
	My question for the Minister is, given that the strategy was published last year, how much progress has been made and how is it monitored? Are the milestones, which were carefully laid out in the strategy and worked on with carers, being reached? How will any slippage be addressed?
	As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, the big elephant in the room is benefits, and the carer's allowance. As someone who wrestled with the problem for three and a half years as a Minister, I say to my colleague that it will not disappear. We should recognise the origin of carer's allowance. Lord Morris, as Minister for disabled people at the time, introduced it as a £10 "thank you" to carers—that was how it was interpreted. Those were gentler, different times. However, carer's allowance has never recovered from being that "thank you" payment in terms of the amount of money that is given. It has always been the lowest benefit and, frankly, it causes great confusion, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam highlighted, and sometimes anger.
	The problem of the so-called overlapping benefit rules was raised again this morning, and has been raised with me in my constituency.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. She said that carer's allowance was regarded from its inception as some sort of expression of the gratitude of the nation to carers. Is not part of the problem the cliff edge that emerges at retirement for carers who reach retirement age and are no longer entitled to carer's allowance? It is now regarded as an income replacement measure, so people who retire are not allowed to continue to receive carer's allowance, and that causes difficulty in trying to replace it with something else, which carers may not be as confident about claiming. Does she have any reflections on that subject?

Anne McGuire: Carer's allowance is an income replacement benefit, as is the state pension. We think of the state pension as being somehow different from a benefit, but technically that is what it is. Both are income replacement benefits, and that is where the difficulty arises with overlapping benefit. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman gives the Government credit for trying to mitigate some of the cliff-edge effects of reaching state pension age. Before the Government were elected, carers fell off a benefit "cliff" when they reached state retirement age and carer's benefit stopped immediately. The Government ensured that a carer's premium was incorporated in pension credit, which means that the individual's total income is not reduced.
	However, that does not address the fundamental problem. How does one explain to parents who have looked after their disabled child from the hour the child was born, and received carer's allowance through most of that child's life, that when they reach 60 their caring responsibilities are no longer recognised? The Government have wrestled with the problem and I hope that, as part of the roll-out of our welfare programme, we can consider how to improve on the current situation. I hope that we can find a way round the overlapping rule. Perhaps it means designating carer's allowance as something other than an income replacement benefit. However, we must all recognise that that comes with a significant cost, and there is no point in politicians who do not currently have to make those decisions calling for that to happen without examining the costs of delivering it. It does not come cheap, but I hope that the Government will continue to keep it under consideration.
	We recognise that caring responsibilities will touch us all at some point in our lives, either as carers or as those receiving care. Yesterday at the reception, two carers, Janice Clark and Valerie Rossiter, gave their personal testimony. Both made powerful statements about their lives and how they had been affected by caring responsibilities. Valerie's experiences were particularly moving. She explained her situation so graphically that it is difficult for me to interpret it for the House today. She has been married for 42 years, yet now her husband does not know who she is. He is in the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease. She said, "This is the man I loved, and now he doesn't know who I am." That is the emotional toll that caring takes on an individual. She was philosophical about some of the battles that she had to fight. She said that although her husband is suffering, although she sometimes has to swim through the bureaucratic treacle, and although she will continue to look after him for the rest of his life, what keeps her going is wanting her experiences to be an example to ensure that other carers do not need to confront some of the difficulties that she has had to face.
	I want to pay tribute to the Government's response over the years to the problems that affect carers. However, we all recognise that the battle has not yet been won. We still need to continue building on the solid foundation that we have created. We still need to recognise that carers are the glue that keeps many families together, and by so doing keeps communities together. I hope that in his response the Minister will continue to pledge his support on the issues that affect the lives of 5 million or 6 million carers. In some ways, the numbers do not matter: we just know that a lot of people out there are taking responsibility, and that one day we too may have to accept that responsibility in our own families.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now going to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I should just explain that under the rules governing topical debates, he has six minutes, plus an added minute for any intervention that he chooses to take.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly keep my comments within that time.
	I welcome this hugely important debate, in this hugely important week. I echo the comments of other hon. Members in paying tribute to the amazing contribution to society that carers make up and down the country, in enabling loved ones to continue living their lives in a loving environment and with dignity, which is something that we would all warmly support. I also pay tribute to Carers UK, which does a wonderful job as the voice for carers in ensuring that all of us and people throughout the country are aware of carers, their needs and the role that they play.
	It is interesting that this year's carers week, under the heading of "Carers: the UK's secret service", focused on the health of carers. It is also interesting that we are having a health debate about carers; I was speaking in a work and pensions debate on carers only a few weeks ago. The cross-departmental responsibilities involved create challenges, and we do not always get joined-up thinking. Some of the figures from the health perspective of caring are particularly interesting. Figures from a Carers UK survey show that more than half of all carers have suffered from a stress-related illness, that more than half have suffered from a physical illness as a result of caring and that 95 per cent. disguise illness because they want to continue with their caring responsibilities. Those are stark figures. It is therefore right that we should concentrate on the health aspects of caring, as well as on the financial implications.
	I would like to ask the Minister some questions about the £150 million that has been earmarked for primary care trusts to spend on respite for carers. First, can he supply us with a breakdown of how much of that money has gone to each primary care trust? How has the Department made PCTs aware of their responsibilities and of what the money is intended for? Most importantly, however—this is what carers want to know—how many carers have benefited from that money? Bluntly, how many carers have received a break? The information that I have received from Carers UK suggests that possibly not many have, which I am afraid means that the money is not getting through. I would ask the Minister to consider that point carefully and give a response.
	A year on from the launch of the carers strategy—an initiative that was welcomed—the Minister has to say how much has changed for carers. Clearly some initiatives are happening, including some that should already have been happening. However, he must accept that if one speaks to carers, as I know many hon. Members have, one will hear from them that very little has changed, and that is not enough. Crucially, the fundamentals have not changed. The fundamentals relate to how we regard carers in this country. The simple reality is that, through the historic development of the carer's allowance, we have asked, "What benefits should we give carers?" However, we should turn that question on its head. We should instead ask, "How as a society can we adequately recognise carers and what they do, and recompense them for the contribution that they make to society?"
	We have heard the figure of £87 billion that is saved for the national health service by the contribution of our 6 million carers. However, I wonder what the cost to the NHS would be of not properly supporting carers. The figures for how many carers are suffering from illnesses as a direct result of their caring responsibilities suggest that the cost would be huge. That is something that we must look into. Many carers are older people who care for loved ones, and we know that their numbers will increase simply because of demographics.
	We have also heard about younger carers, who are covered in the report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member. As has been acknowledged, young people who are carers cannot do the things that other young people do, such as sport. Therefore, they cannot keep themselves as healthy as other young people if they are not given proper respite. There is also an impact on their earning potential, their chances of going to university and the other things that come under the work and pensions banner.
	However, the crux of the matter, as several hon. Members have said, is that we simply do not have a system that adequately reflects the contribution made by carers. The level of the carer's allowance remains a source of shame and embarrassment to this country. I echo the calls made by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—we need a timetable. This Government are running out of time; they have a matter of months. Surely the Minister, who I know cares deeply about the issue, wants to bring forward a proper timetable for the reform of those benefits.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is rightly pressing the Minister to provide a timetable for the reform of the allowance, but does he agree that we also need a timetable for the publication of the Green Paper?

Greg Mulholland: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which I should like to use to ask the Minister to indicate the extent to which carers' needs will be considered in the Green Paper, because that is so crucial to the wider issue.
	We must have a timetable, but I reiterate what I said in the debate a few weeks ago. We cannot accept the reform of benefits for carers under the umbrella of benefit simplification. That will mean waiting too long. Carers cannot wait for a wider review of the benefits system. That work will be important, but carers need to be considered separately and sooner, because as the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) said, the cost implications of not doing anything are huge.
	It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to point out the huge contribution that carers make. However, may I leave the Minister with this thought: can he give us an indication of when, before this Government leave office, he will put that timetable in place?

Angela Watkinson: This important debate is taking place in carers week. Indeed, I shall be attending carers day in my constituency tomorrow, as I am sure many colleagues will be in theirs too. It is right that Parliament should draw full attention to the important contribution that carers make to the quality of the lives of their family members with a chronic illness or disability.
	Carers make an impressive collective saving of £87 billion a year to the public purse. Indeed, it is doubtful whether our public services would have the capacity to intervene for the number of people being cared for if their families were no longer able to cope. An estimated 6 million people are caring currently, and we must not take them for granted. It is important that we acknowledge that that huge saving to the taxpayer, which is higher than the total NHS budget in 2006-07, often comes at great cost to individual carers, in terms of limited access to education and training opportunities, availability for work, which seriously limits their earning potential, and social contact outside the home.
	All too often, carers experience impaired health, which results from the daily demands that caring places on them. Carers are not noted for complaining about their lot in life. Old and young carers alike put the needs of their loved ones before themselves, and they do it cheerfully, but on a very tight budget. I welcome the Minister's comments about a benefit review, which I hope will happen soon.
	The situation for carers is quite complex, because they are allowed to earn only £95 a week if they wish to have access to the carer's allowance. They are also limited in their ability to make themselves available for employment, given the logistics of their daily lives. The number of hours that they can leave home every day may be limited, and they need to balance that responsibility with the needs of the person for whom they are caring. So we are not only talking about a financial equation; there are other practical problems relating to the earning capacity of carers.
	I welcome the Minister's comment about family pathfinders. That was news to me, and I was pleased to hear it. I want to say a little about young carers. I have been surprised to find out how many young people are caring for a parent who is disabled or who has a chronic illness. The London borough of Havering, of which Upminster forms a part, presents young citizens awards every year for a range of special achievements including sport, education and volunteering. Young carers are always represented.
	The routines and daily lives of young carers are very different from those of their peers. Many children need to be chased in the morning to get dressed, eat their breakfast and remember their PE kit and their homework, but these children do all that for themselves as well as caring for their parent. They help to wash and dress them, then perhaps write a shopping list for the food for family meals that they need to collect on the way home from school. Lunch time for those young carers is not taken up by clubs or sports or playing with their friends. It is an opportunity to go home and check on their mother. After school, they collect the shopping, go home and help to prepare the evening meal. These responsibilities, although carried out willingly and cheerfully, can be emotionally and physically exhausting for a child.
	Schools are as supportive as possible of pupils in those circumstances, but we must find ways to ensure that those children do not fall below their educational potential. There is a direct link here to the next debate, as young carers may self-exclude from entry into the professions, not from a lack of ability but from a lack of personal aspiration and ambition and from a sense of duty to caring. There is a challenge here for schools and social services to work together to prevent this from happening, particularly in families with no history of further or higher education.
	I am particularly involved with autism in my constituency, and the spotlight has been on autism recently. Those of us who took part in the "Walk in our Shoes" day had the opportunity to see at first hand how autism in one child affects the life of the entire family. The daily routine is arranged around the needs of the autistic child, and I was surprised to learn of the associated additional costs involved, including the frequent replacement of damaged items in the home and unusually large quantities of laundry, for example.
	Parents of children on the low-performing end of the autistic disorder spectrum have a continuing long-term caring role. Their children are unable to reach the usual periodic milestones in development that gradually reduce the parental supervision and caring role. Special schools play a hugely supportive role, providing not only education for their pupils but a period of respite during the day, which is often the only opportunity for parents to sleep. Some children with autism are very bad sleepers; I have heard parents say that their child can go without sleep for a week. If there are other children in such a family, the mother often stays awake all night trying to keep the autistic child quiet and occupied so that the rest of the family are not disturbed. The children might have to go to school in the morning; the father might have to go to work.
	I pay tribute to the three superb special schools in my constituency—Dycorts, Ravensbourne and Corbets Tey—for the quality of the education that they provide and for the endless patience and respect that they show to their pupils in teasing out every last ounce of potential for development. The end of statutory education is often dreaded by parents, as the days are long and difficult to fill. The wonderful ROSE—realistic opportunities for supported employment—project at Havering college of further and higher education is a boon to students with learning difficulties and their parent carers. The supported employment project started in a very modest way, with a small number of job tutors and students, but it has grown more than anyone dared to hope. It has gone from strength to strength.
	Instead of a life of boredom at home on benefits, the young people with learning difficulties—many of them are young people with autism—are able to have paid employment with support that is gradually withdrawn until they are able to travel and spend their working day independently. They have proved themselves to be reliable, cheerful and anxious to please their employers. Moreover, their parents benefit from the daily respite. When the ROSE project started, its organisers went out to local employers in my constituency to try to persuade them to provide placements for students with learning difficulties. Over time, the students have been so successful that the employers approach the project to ask whether it has students available.
	People with Down's syndrome now have a good life expectancy because of improved health care, but independent living is not always possible for them, and the caring role of parents can often extend into the parents' old age. Caring parents have real worries about their physical ability to continue to care and, worse, about the future of their children when they are gone. How will they adapt to changed living circumstances and cope with bereavement?
	Alzheimer's sufferers present particular problems when the condition comes on late in life, as it often does. Their carers are usually their spouses, who are themselves elderly and may not be in the best of health and fitness. There is added stress when the sufferer no longer recognises the carer. Even though they might have spent decades living together in a loving relationship, they often end their days in very different, stressful circumstances.
	Older people are probably the least likely to seek help, particularly the very elderly people who do not like to make a fuss. They do not like to bother the doctor as they feel they must be terribly busy looking after other people. This means that situations often reach crisis point before help is sought. That can result in the person with Alzheimer's being taken into professional care and the very elderly spouse making daily visits but not being recognised. That is a very sad situation.
	I have in my constituency the wonderful Havering Association of Disabilities, which is an umbrella organisation for carers and people with a wide range of disabilities, run by the inspirational Mary Capon. It provides an effective support network, including a befriending service that is invaluable for disabled people living on their own. The befrienders form a real relationship with people. They visit them at home and also take them out, which often provides the only opportunity that those people have to leave the house.
	The organisation also provides a good range of social activities, and opportunities for training in information technology and in preparing a CV, in preparation for seeking employment. Without even asking Mary Capon, I say to the Minister that I know that she would love the Havering Association of Disabilities to be involved with the family pathfinders project, whatever form it takes.
	I know that all hon. Members are very much aware of the huge contribution made by carers in enabling their loved ones to remain in their own homes in familiar surroundings, and in reducing the size of the health and social services budgets by putting their owns needs in second place. But we always need to ensure that carers' continuing efforts are appreciated. We all know individual carers and discuss their circumstances with them regularly, but the acknowledgement and appreciation need to range wider, so that no carer feels isolated or overlooked, and so that all possible practical and financial help is made available to improve the quality of carers' lives.

Jeremy Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and I substantially agree with many of her points. Indeed, I agree with a great deal of what all contributors to the debate have said—including the Minister, who opened it and whom I am delighted to see still in his place. He knows better than most that this policy area requires consistency of approach, which is difficult to achieve when we have a different Minister every few months. It is a pleasure to see him still in his post.
	I shall make just a few points in order to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate. My first is about the number of carers, although I am in agreement with my hon. Friend that, in a sense, it does not much matter whether there are 5 million or 6 million. My point is that the argument should be, at least in part, about how many of those who are carers identify themselves as such. Many do not: they see themselves as doing right by their families, looking after family members in the way that they believe it is incumbent on them to do—without wishing, as she said, to make a fuss or to draw attention to what they do, and without seeking recognition or reward for it.
	Carers are often very modest people, with every reason not to be so. The recognition that we rightly give to them—and it should not be just annually in debates like this; I agree with those who say that we should recognise them more frequently, more regularly and more consistently—comes not because they ask for it, but because they richly deserve it. We need to persuade those carers to identify themselves as such before we can offer them the sort of assistance the Minister set out and to which others have referred. The offers of help and support, the information exercises and so forth are linked with the opportunity that we should take to recognise carers and encourage those who do not yet recognise themselves as such to do so in order to access all those streams of support.

Angela Watkinson: I agree that carers do not often fit readily into a definable box. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) may recall that I visited her in her previous ministerial role. I came to see her with a young lady from my constituency who was trying to balance work and benefits with her mother, who did not regard herself as a carer because the daughter was ostensibly living independently. However, the mother spent most of her life dashing back and forth from her own home to her daughter's home to give her the support that she could not manage without.

Jeremy Wright: I entirely agree, and I think that the lady my hon. Friend describes is one of those whom we should try harder to reach and offer the sort of support that we all want carers to receive.

Paul Burstow: According to the last census, there were about 19,000 carers in my constituency, but we have identified only about 4,000 or 5,000 in the borough. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one group of professionals most likely to come across carers—either because of a carer's ill health or the ill health of the person for whom they are caring—is general practitioners? GPs need to get training in order better to identify carers and then act as the facilitators in passing the information on to others.

Jeremy Wright: I entirely agree; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why, as I said, I was encouraged by what the Minister told us about opportunities to train those who are professionals to understand how to help those who are not professionals but who are still making a substantial contribution to the care of people we are most concerned to look after.
	It seems to me that this is more than a matter of gratitude or just saying thank you to carers—however much we rightly do so in the debate—because we need to offer them real and practical support. As the Minister rightly said, we must try to ensure that carers have the maximum opportunity to combine their caring responsibilities not only with a fulfilling social life but, just as importantly, with a fulfilling career. That should enable them to get back into work, succeed on their own terms and still maintain their caring responsibilities. Once again, it is important for carers to identify themselves to receive the recognition they deserve; in circumstances of better and greater recognition, it should be easier for them to go to their employers and ask for the flexible working they need. It should be easier for that to happen if employers automatically understand what carers do and how important it is for them to continue with it.
	It is also important to ensure that health and social services professionals—the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—can recognise the importance of a carer's responsibilities and a carer's understanding of the individual for whom care is being provided. Too many carers—we all talk to them—are frustrated because they are treated as people who do not understand what is going on, when in fact the opposite is the case and the carer is the one who spends the most time with the person for whom care is being provided. He or she knows that person best, and their opinion of that person—what they need and what they will best respond to—should be fully taken into account.
	I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) that it is important to reconcile that viewpoint with the occasional desire of the person being cared for to take a different view to that of their carer on any subject. In the majority of cases, however, what the person cared for will want is for their carer's view to be taken fully into account. Rarely is it in fact taken into account as fully as we would wish by the professionals involved in their care.
	I wish to refer to two specific groups. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), who both rightly highlighted the interests of young carers. It is right to pay particular attention to their needs, but equally we should not forget those at the other end of the age range. Older carers have particular needs and particular requirements. They are the ones whose health suffers disproportionately as a result of their caring responsibilities. We know that something like a quarter of the 5 million or 6 million carers are of retirement age. That is a very significant number of people, and I believe that there are about 8,000 carers over the age of 90! How those people manage, I simply do not know, but we must be aware of their particular needs and requirements when we consider how best to help carers.
	The second group is, as my hon. Friend said, an overlapping group—those who care for people who have dementia. The Minister would be disappointed if I failed to mention dementia at some point in my remarks. It is important to recognise the particular requirements on those who care not just for people with dementia but for all who have a mental illness or disability as opposed to a physical one. I am not saying for a moment that it is easier to care for someone with a physical disability, but it is different, and there are different requirements on carers looking after someone with a mental difficulty.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, one of the main differences is that the carer starts to lose something of the person they knew as the illness or condition progresses. More often than not, the person being cared for requires more and more from the carer, just as the carer is losing more and more of the one for whom they are caring. That is an extremely distressing situation to be in for anyone with a caring responsibility. We need to take account not just of the physical health needs, but of the mental health needs of those who are carers, and ensure that the risks they run—in exposure to depression and other conditions—are adequately catered for.
	I have a couple of final points about the specific and practical action that we can take. The first, which the Minister mentioned, is respite care. It is right to provide for the availability of such care. No one can do a caring job 24 hours a day, seven days a week—they simply could not cope; people need a break sometimes. A break will help them to do a better job for the rest of the time; that is well understood by everyone. It is also worth acknowledging that simple provision of respite care will not do the job, because we also need to provide for quality respite care. If we do not, it will not be a real break at all. We have all spoken to carers who tell us, "I put the person I care for into full-time care. I had a week's holiday, but it was the worst week in my life, because I spent the entire time worrying about whether my loved one was being properly looked after." That is not respite care. We need to ensure that the respite care we provide is of sufficient quality to provide that reassurance, and that information about its quality is provided to carers so that they enjoy the break that we can offer them.
	My last point is about simplicity. When it comes to the benefit system, we will all have difficult decisions to make about how much can be afforded, but it is beyond question that when people look at a website or call a phone line to understand what is available, the information given must be easily digestible. Whether the advice is there or not, the actual provision of benefits needs to be simpler. That is why we have to talk about the cliff edge or the distinction between retirement and non-retirement so that there is some continuity and simplicity in the benefits that those who provide care can receive.
	We shall never be able to make the lives of those who care easy—that is beyond all of us—but we do have a responsibility to make those lives slightly less difficult, and I think that both this and the next Government should focus their attention on that.

Phil Hope: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate.
	I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) for their clear and moving speeches. I am pleased that carers week gave us the opportunity to engage in this debate, and also to give other hon. Members and organisations an opportunity to engage in debates throughout the country. I thank all the organisations that work to support and represent carers, not just national organisations, but the organisations in Members' constituencies of which we have heard today, which do such fantastic work all over the country.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) reminded us of the role played not just by carers but by volunteers and befrienders. The fact that 20 million people offer their services voluntarily to the community is, along with the number of carers, a sign that we have a strong society with its values in the right place.
	Let me try to clarify the question of numbers. I understand that the 5 million figure given yesterday relates to the number of carers in England, while the 6 million figure given by Carers UK relates to the whole United Kingdom. However, as we were told by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the figures may be even higher, because not all carers identify themselves as such.
	Hon. Members pointed out that GPs provide an important gateway to the necessary resources, and drew attention to the need for support for both young and older carers. They also mentioned dementia. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who chairs the all-party group on dementia, spoke of the importance of responding to the individual needs of different people in different ways and tailoring support. Caring can sometimes be very distressing and demanding.
	Let me say a few things that I did not have an opportunity to say in my opening speech. Hon. Members referred to carers who want both to care and to go on working. We want to help them to do that. Jobcentre Plus is recruiting specialist care partnership managers, who will be responsible for improving information on carers support for both staff and customers. We want to try to remove some of the barriers faced by carers who wish to return to paid employment. We want to stand up and represent their employment interests in a variety of partnerships. The aim of Employers for Carers, an organisation launched earlier this year, is to identify and promote the business benefits of supporting carers at work. Many employed people also have caring responsibilities, and Employers for Carers offers practical support for the development and benchmarking of good practice.
	I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I will say to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who listed a number of demands and complaints, that I did not hear from him a single commitment or pledge of support for any particular policy. I feel that he struck a discordant note in choosing to create a party-political divide by calling for an election. That was silly. He made a sad, slightly whingeing and unhelpful contribution to an important debate which should have united the House. Similarly, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) asked questions but offered no information about the Liberal Democrats' proposals—
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A) .

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the Minister has had to suffer a double whammy, but we must now proceed to the next debate.

Social Mobility and the Professions

[Relevant document: The uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Children, Schools  and Families Committee on 8 June 2009, on Social  Mobility, HC 624-i.]

Angela Smith: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of social mobility and fair access to the professions.
	I am pleased that my first Cabinet Office debate concerns such an important issue—one of the most important that must be dealt with by society as a whole, and a subject on which I feel particularly strongly.
	I want to say something about the work of the panel on fair access to the professions. I pay tribute to the panel and its chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). Access to the professions and social mobility are important to society and to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Today's debate will be enhanced by the wealth of expertise represented on the panel, which, as a cross-party, independent body, has scrutinised both Government and society as a whole. Having read its reports, I thank the panel for the depth of the work that it has undertaken, and look forward to seeing the conclusions and recommendations that it will make to the Prime Minister.
	The Government believe that every member of society should have the opportunity to get on with life. That ethos is at the heart of what government is about. We are committed to ensuring that everyone can achieve their potential, not just now but in the decades to come—not just for their own benefit, important though that is, but for the benefit of society and the economy. We need to be able to draw on the widest possible pool of talent, and ensure that the best people enter the professions.
	The panel's reports identify the importance of the professions to the economic and social success of the country, and reflect on the number of new people who are required in an evolving global economy—an economy which will become very different in the future. They also draw attention to the need for fairer access in particular spheres. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will say more about that, but what is crucial is the ability to choose from the widest possible pool of talent in order to increase economic efficiency and production. That will not only help individuals to succeed, but contribute to social cohesion and inclusion. Social mobility has a direct impact on our economic future.
	It may seem difficult to imagine this now, but the world's economy is set to double in the next decade as India and China renew their economic growth. One billion skilled jobs are being created, and here in the United Kingdom we shall need to find an extra 6.8 million or so new entrants to the professions. We need to be ready to capture those jobs in the future, and ensure that everyone can enjoy new opportunities as they arrive. That must be a priority for the Government.
	Access to the professions and to senior jobs must clearly be based on talent and the ability to do the job. Geography, finance and family background cannot be the deciding factors. Although that ambition is not contentious, many communities, and even graduates of many universities, are denied access to many professional and senior jobs. Of course no one wants people who cannot do the job; what we want are the best people in the job, regardless of their background. All too often, barriers exist to prevent that. We are committed to continuing the progress that has already been made, and destroying every obstacle in order to ensure fair access to the professions for all.
	I think it fair to say that we have made progress towards achieving our objectives, but to ensure fair access we need to help individuals at different stages of their lives. Children need support from their early years if they are to secure the best start in life and develop their abilities. Young people, whatever their backgrounds and aspirations, need support as they make the transition from school to further education, training and higher education. Adults also need help to develop and adapt their skills in an increasingly changing labour market. The provision of excellent, personalised public services can provide the right balance of support and incentives, and we are continuing to build on what we have already achieved in that regard.
	We do not consider it right to cut the investment that is necessary to build secure foundations for tomorrow, especially during a recession. I know that some believe that a recession is the best time at which to cut back, but it really is not. We must invest during a recession in order to take advantage of the upturn.
	Even the youngest people need support if the professions are to benefit from that wider pool of talent in the future, and we have more than doubled the number of child care places to 1.5 million in just over 10 years. All three-year-olds and four-year-olds are now entitled to free part-time early education places if that is what their parents want, and we have introduced more than 3,000 Sure Start children's centres. We have brought families out of poverty through tax credits, the national minimum wage and child trust funds, which is making a real difference to their lives. I am sure that all Members of Parliament have been told about that in their constituencies.
	In the Budget, the Chancellor also announced that the child element of the tax credit would increase by an additional £20 a year above indexation from April 2010. In schools we have doubled funding per pupil in real terms, which has raised overall performance. We owe a tribute to teachers and classroom assistants, who have played a massive part in changing education and improving the quality of education that young people receive in our schools. It is no coincidence that total funding per pupil in the past 12 years has almost doubled to £2,880. In the pre-Budget report we announced £14.5 billion of additional spending on education for 2010-11. That investment has made a difference. There are now fewer schools in special measures—the number has nearly halved in just over 10 years—and those that are in special measures get out of them much more quickly because of the support that is there for them. The investment in education means that there are 41,000 more teachers, 210,000 more support staff and over 120,000 more teaching assistants than 12 years ago.
	The investment also means that now more than 64 per cent. of pupils attain at least five GCSEs from A* to C, including English and Maths. That has gone up from 45 per cent.—less than half—12 years ago. The investment in staff, equipment, buildings and child care has delivered real improvements in education. To help those who are perhaps most at risk from not fulfilling their potential in school, we have introduced the educational maintenance allowance. Half a million young people have been helped every year with £10, £20 or £30 a week.
	In the 2009 Budget, the Chancellor also announced a guaranteed job, training or work placement for all 18 to 24-year-olds who reach 12 months' unemployment. We have also prioritised giving second chances to those adults who did not achieve their potential in education the first time around. Since 2001, over 2.5 million people have improved their basic skills and we have now put in place a legal right for adults to get free training up to level 2—GCSE, A-level or equivalent—to help increase their employability. We have revived apprenticeships as a viable and mainstream option for young people. This year there will be an extra 35,000 apprenticeships and we have seen a huge increase in the number of young people completing their apprenticeships.
	One problem is that all too often in the professions there are barriers preventing those in junior roles from progressing to professional and better paid jobs. There was a time when older journalists could say that they had gone from making the tea on their local paper to becoming a senior journalist on a national newspaper. We do not see that so often these days. Another route is an unpaid internship through family connections in London, which is becoming an increasingly normal way to enter national journalism. It can still be difficult for talented, able and ambitious apprentices to work their way up to the highest levels. We have listened to the views on this and, following consultation, the UCAS points system will be applied to apprenticeships.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to the "New Opportunities" White Paper, which sets out ambitious plans for everyone in Britain to make the most of their potential, to increase aspiration and, having done so, to turn that into success. The commitments in the White Paper will have a direct impact on the issues under discussion today. We are on track to provide access to high-quality early learning and child care for two-year-olds by September.
	Already 145 schools are taking part in the scheme to get the most effective teachers into the most challenging schools. Often, one of the problems for the most challenging schools is a high turnover of teachers. Effective teachers are joining such schools from September, and they will get a new £10,000 incentive if they guarantee to stay in the school for three years, thus ensuring continuity of teaching for their pupils. These new skills and that continuity will help to continue the improvements that we are seeing in the most challenging schools, often in the most challenging communities.
	The National Apprenticeship Service was launched in April with the aim of creating 35,000 new apprenticeship places across the public and private sectors. That is a challenge. We have a Cabinet-level steering group and the continued development of delivery plans is in the early stages, but good progress is being made and I urge as many private and public organisations as possible to take on apprentices to make this a success.
	We are trebling the number of career development loans available for people who want to undertake training. It will help to develop their skills and to realise their full potential. Over the next two years, 45,000 new and rebranded professional and career development loans will be made available, up from the 15,000 available in this financial year. They will be made more attractive by reducing the headline interest rates, allowing people to apply for loans of up to £10,000 to study at colleges, universities and with private training providers—an increase on the current limit of £8,000.

John Bercow: I am listening with respect to the Minister. The Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), will know that a particular hobby horse of mine is clause 84 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which concerns election for apprenticeship schemes. Will the Minister take on board the concern that if there is a prescriptive requirement that somebody should have level 2 or level 3 qualifications, that can discriminate against young people with special educational needs—perhaps on the autistic spectrum—who do not have such qualifications but who in every other way would be extremely well suited to the pursuit of an apprenticeship scheme?

Angela Smith: I entirely agree; the hon. Gentleman will know that the matter was raised several times in Committee. The Government are looking at it, because we do not want people with special educational needs to be excluded from apprenticeships. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken his comments on board. That point also relates to the charity v, which is looking at full-time volunteering opportunities for young people who are not in education or employment. We want that to be extended as far as possible from April this year.
	Having read the two reports from the panel, I am eager to see the recommendations to be given to the Prime Minister. We believe that everyone with ability from across society should have an opportunity to get the most senior jobs in society. That is why the Government invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), senior professionals and experts to establish the panel on fair access to the professions, which is entirely independent of Government.
	The panel's remit was to look at barriers to fair access and senior jobs and at what more could be done by the professions with support from the Government to improve fair access for all. Fair access to the professions is crucial for individuals. It is important for their communities and for society, but it is also crucial to the economy as a whole. We must have the widest possible pool of talent from which to choose, as that increases economic efficiency and productivity. It is not just individuals who succeed if we give everyone a fair chance; it can also contribute to social cohesion and social inclusion. Social mobility has a direct impact on our economic future.
	The panel is developing its recommendations, which will be published over the summer, although it has shown so far that many of the top professions are not representative of society. There is a much higher representation of independent school-educated professionals, especially doctors and lawyers, who come from well-off families.

David Willetts: The Minister referred to the report being published in the summer. That has been the official position for some time. Can she give any more detail as to when we might expect it? Will there be a statement to the Commons?

Angela Smith: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. It is not my report or my panel. I wish I could assist the hon. Gentleman. It would not be for the Government to tell my right hon. Friend what to do and when to present his report.

Alan Milburn: I am grateful not to be told what to do by my hon. Friend. If it helps the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the House, I can say that the intention is to publish our report in mid-July. It is for the Government to decide whether they want the House to consider it. As it is an independent report from a ferociously independent panel, representing all parties and none, I cannot speak on behalf of the Government on that issue. But we will publish in mid-July; I hope before the House rises.

Angela Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that "summer" was a fair representation, although we are not always sure that July is summer. Some professions have perversely become less, not more, socially representative over time, especially accountancy and journalism. The panel has so far identified five underlying barriers to improving access to the professions and the House would be pleased to hear the views of Members on these issues.

Mark Field: I appreciate that the hon. Lady has just started that section of her speech, but will she give at least some credit to the professions—particularly the Law Society and the Bar Council I might add, as I was formerly a lawyer—for the efforts that they have made to increase social mobility and ensure that there is, as far as possible, broader access to them? It should not be felt that the professions are unaware that these issues are at stake; indeed, they have made some significant steps in recent years. They might have more to do, but they are very much on board.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Many professions recognise that if they are to attract the brightest, best and most able, they will need to have a much fairer system of progression. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bar Council, and there is Julia Neuberger's report on that issue. Many professions have taken good steps forward, but they acknowledge that they have more to do in facing the challenge ahead of us. Progress has been made, but I would not imagine that any Member thinks that we have gone as far as we should. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, but we want there to be more, and we await the panel's recommendations on the best ways to achieve that.

John Hayes: I want to ask the hon. Lady a question, and to do so without prejudice. To what extent has graduate entry changed the opportunities for people to rise through professions? It was once entirely possible for someone to start as a tea boy in a professional organisation and to rise to close to the top of it. I know of cases when precisely that occurred in both journalism and accountancy.

Angela Smith: The panel will be looking at, and making recommendations on, precisely those issues. The extent of such opportunities varies from profession to profession. Graduate entry has opened up access in some professions, but, perversely, it has had the opposite effect in others. That is why the panel has been asked to make independent recommendations on all these issues; we want fair access to the professions.
	The panel's initial report highlights the aspirations of young people as a significant barrier. Only one in five young people from average backgrounds and only one in eight from poorer backgrounds currently aspire to be a professional—in this context, that term covers a wide range of professions. However, the proportion for young people whose parents are already in one of the professions is two in five. I do not believe that where we live, how much our parents earn and what our parents do have any impact at all on ability, but they clearly impact on young people's aspirations.
	Another important issue is career support for young people. The panel's research shows that soft skills are becoming increasingly valued by employers, but not all young people have the opportunity to develop them. Another barrier is to do with internships and work experience. They have become an important route into the top jobs. More than nine in 10 young people have been interns. That helps to raise their aspirations and improve their CVs, and four out of five employers recruit former interns. A disproportionate number of internships are in London and the south-east, and the evidence shows that more internships are sourced through families and friends than through advertised schemes. Therefore, where a young person lives and what university they attend can also be a barrier to their moving into the professions.
	Another issue is recruitment and selection. Seven out of 10 of the top graduate employers target just 20 of 167 universities. Therefore, as I have said before, what university someone attends can have an impact on their progression.
	There is also an issue to do with flexible routes of entry to the professions. There has been a long-term decline in the non-graduate routes. Today, only 27 of  The Times top 100 employers accept alternative entry routes such as non-graduate entry. There are good examples of professions opening their doors to people entering from different routes, such as the fast-track teaching qualification, which can be undertaken in just six months. There is clearly more to do, however.
	It will take a few years before we have a clearer picture of access to professions for all those who have come through the education system in the past decade, but to date the panel's evidence shows a narrowing attainment gap between kids from poorer families and those from better off families. We believe that that will lead to increased social mobility in the years ahead.
	The issue of aspiration is at the heart of this debate. We need to ensure that young people aim higher and fulfil their aspirations. Fair access to the professions is not just good for those individuals who succeed; it is good for their communities and for society. It is also no exaggeration to say that it is essential for the economic and social future of this country.
	Any successful economic strategy that can take advantage of the global economy of the future must be built on the foundation of a highly skilled work force. We are currently in very difficult economic times, but this is not the time to cut back. We need to invest, as it is crucial that we are ready for the economic upturn when it comes and as it happens. It is estimated that the global economy will need 1 billion extra skilled jobs in the next 20 years, and the figure for the United Kingdom is probably about 6.8 million to 7 million.
	To reap the benefits, we will need action and investment at every stage of a child's life. I know that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) does not entirely accept that and has concerns about early-years investment and Sure Start. The evidence shows, however, that we have to invest in those early years; otherwise, we will not reap the benefits as those children pass through the education system.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) may have let the cat out of the bag this week when he talked about proposals for 10 per cent. funding cuts across the board—apart from in one or two areas. If the Opposition's proposals are to cut post-16 Train to Gain, that will reduce social mobility, increase social inequalities and fail this country's economy. The progress being made by the Government will lead to everyone being able to fulfil their potential. If one person does not fulfil their potential and aspirations, or fails to have them in the first place, that is a waste for them as an individual, for the community, for society as a whole, and, crucially, for the economy and future of this country. We are committed to stopping the squandering of those skills, and to ensuring that the brightest and the best from every background, family income level and part of the country will have the chance to fulfil their potential.

Mark Field: Does the hon. Lady not feel that the emphasis—or, it might be argued, over-emphasis—on aspirations and access to the professions can often obscure a real concern? She is right that there will be a need for 1 billion more skilled people in the global economy in the decades ahead. The real issue, therefore, is that there needs to be more investment in further education and lifelong learning, not simply in access to the professions, which will always be elitist in the respect that only about 15 or 20 per cent. of people will be able to aspire to join them. We should focus on the jobs that will be required in future through better further education and a commitment to lifelong learning.

Angela Smith: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's point, although I accept that he means it well, in that the two things seem complementary. The argument we are putting forward today—this is why we are so keen to see the panel's recommendations—is that through every life cycle of someone's education and skills training, the support and training needs to be in place. Having support and fairer access to professions is crucial, but part and parcel of that is improving access to further and higher education. The two are complementary; they are not exclusive or separate in any way.
	In conclusion, I pay tribute again to the work undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and his panel. He has taken on a huge task, because this issue affects the future not only of individuals but of the whole economy of this country. He will want to take on board the views of this House, and we are eager to see his recommendations, so that they can be taken on board in order to make the difference that society and this country needs.

David Willetts: I welcome both the Minister to her new responsibilities, which include this important subject of social mobility, and this debate. I do not know whether she planned to have a debate on this subject within two days of becoming the Minister responsible for it, but it is welcome that she is at the Dispatch Box to speak on it. The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) is also in the Chamber, and he is leading the independent review. The work that has been produced, both originally by the Cabinet Office's strategy unit—that was on social mobility as a whole—and more recently by the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, is excellent. The amount of empirical evidence assembled in those reports is fantastic, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the right man to push forward this agenda. We read in the papers that he got his party's Chief Whip to apologise for having suggested that he was a rebel plotting the downfall of the Prime Minister last week; we note that nobody else has had such a statement from the Chief Whip. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber to debate this important subject.
	Our starting point is the statistics that have led to an extraordinarily lively academic debate about the decline in social mobility between children born in 1958 and those born in 1970. Although the evidence since 1970 is debated, it seems clear to me that, despite one or two claims to the contrary, social mobility has been flatlining since 1970. The summary of the November 2008 document got it about right when it stated:
	"Broadly, social mobility is no greater or less since 1970".
	Something I welcomed in the Minister's statement was that she did not try to argue that social mobility was improving again; it might be, but we do not have the evidence for that. One of the leading experts, Paul Gregg, who did work on children who were born in 1990 and took their GCSEs 15 years later, said that there was not enough evidence to claim with any confidence that there had been an improvement. Although we hope things are getting better, we do not have the evidence to say that at the moment.
	The panel's reports are fascinating. The Minister rather dangerously strayed into the territory of access to different professions. As I do not believe that there are any journalists sitting up there in the Press Gallery, let us be clear about what the figures show. The table on page 2, which shows the backgrounds of professionals born in 1958 compared with those of professionals born in 1970—again, those two longitudinal studies are used—is about the most fascinating one in the report. The table measures how much more affluent their families were in comparison with the average family income.
	In some professions—teaching, for example—there has been, if anything, a tiny improvement. For those joining other professions, the family backgrounds of those born in 1970 were much more relatively affluent than the backgrounds of those born in 1958. The biggest single change was found to have taken place in journalism: journalists born in 1958 were seen to have come from backgrounds where the family income was roughly the same as the average, whereas for those born in 1970 a massive gap had opened up. I am looking forward to the Minister coming to the Chamber when we have the panel's report in mid-July and telling us what she is going to do about access to journalism. As she takes on the journalists' profession, we will be watching sympathetically from a distance.
	I was also struck by the material on page 45, which again shows the rise of requirements for graduate entry—another powerful piece of evidence from this very useful report. We look forward to the final report that the Minister will receive from the right hon. Member for Darlington.
	We have done some research of our own on social mobility, including an analysis of evidence from the Office for National Statistics about the backgrounds of people who go to university. We did a micro-analysis, based on the neighbourhoods that those people came from, and we concluded that the figures convey a stark message. Despite hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on widening participation, the figures still show that in the richest, most affluent areas of the country six in 10 young people go to university, but in the poorest, most deprived neighbourhoods three in 10 go to university. So there are still enormous gaps in the opportunities for young people to go to university, and it is hard to improve social mobility with that bottleneck in the access to university.
	We are also concerned about the prospects for the poorest young people. They have an increased risk of being not in education, employment or training—NEET. We are, sadly, in tough economic times with high unemployment, and it is worth remembering the evidence that a period of unemployment, especially when very young, can scar someone for life. People's lifetime earning prospects are affected, and it seems to affect the kind of jobs they have 20 years later.

Mark Field: It is also perhaps worth stressing that that applies not only to young people leaving school, but to those leaving university. Those who graduated during the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s have found their opportunities severely limited. Sadly, the same may apply to last year's graduates and this year's graduates—although we hope not for too much further forward than that. A recession is a very limiting experience, whenever one leaves full-time education.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why we propose, as a temporary measure, that extra postgraduate taught masterships should be made available for people leaving university this year who are finding it difficult to get a job.

David Lammy: The Government are committed to growth in postgraduate education along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am sure that he will agree that although graduates face a tough autumn, in the medium to long term those in the employment market arrive in the end where they intended to be.

David Willetts: Well, we hope so. We will have an unusual development this summer, which will see the toughest recruitment round for graduates since the big expansion of universities. We have had a steadily improving labour market overall for the past 15 years, and I hope that what the Minister says is correct and the evidence on the blighting of life chances by periods of unemployment does not apply to graduates. We will have to wait and see.
	Young people will be the worst victims of the recession, because they will find it hard to get jobs when they leave university, and youth unemployment is rising. But even during the boom years in the first part of this decade, and while in other advanced economies youth unemployment was falling and the proportion of young people who were NEET was falling, Britain was already heading in the wrong direction. For example, among 16 to 24-year-olds unemployment rose in the UK between 1997 and 2007 from 13.4 per cent. to 14.4 per cent., while across the OECD it fell from 15.7 per cent. to 13.4 per cent. Our NEET rate for the same age group rose from 11.6 per cent. in 2000 to 13 per cent. in 2005, at the same time as the OECD average was falling. I make that point because that tells me that some features of Government policy meant that the problems were getting worse even when the overall economy was improving. There are some lessons that Ministers need to draw from that.
	I can see the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property itching to intervene, but I will give way to him when I have completed my point. My belief is that the way in which he is funding FE colleges, through the Learning and Skills Council, to churn out paper qualifications makes it harder for people who were already detached from education to go through the doors of the FE colleges. The colleges wanted people who would get a national vocational qualification fast, and increasing numbers were therefore excluded from education and training by the performance indicators and funding systems that Ministers were applying. I would be interested to hear why the Minister disagrees.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate before, that all of us, across the House, recognise that there are young people who are not in education, employment or training. I certainly see that in my constituency. That is why we want to take the age to which young people remain in training up to 18. Notwithstanding that, however, he knows—we have had this ding-dong in many television studios—that his figures include young people on gap years. They also include young people who are independently wealthy—there have been more of them, clearly, over the past 10 years—and young people who have had children, who have other commitments or who have particular disabilities. It is important to reflect on those figures and to dissociate them from the young people about whom he is particularly concerned.

David Willetts: There are, of course, a range of reasons why young people are NEET, but I was quoting OECD figures that are comparable. They are on the same basis for Britain in 2005 as they are for Britain in 2000. They allow comparison between Britain and other advanced western countries. Whatever we think about the composition of that group, I am making two points about the trend. First, the trend in the UK was in the wrong direction. Secondly, the trend was in the wrong direction in the UK when the trend in the rest of the OECD, which was going through the same overall economic situation, was in the right direction. The Minister's ingenuity does not explain what was going on.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Britain had 10 successive years of growth. That situation was not replicated in other European countries; indeed, it was not replicated in Japan or the US, either. The inclusion in the figures of those who are independently wealthy as NEET makes my point.

David Willetts: I am afraid that I do not follow the Minister's point.

Barry Sheerman: I did not follow the Minister's point, either, but I probably misunderstood because I am sitting directly behind him. I am not making a cheap political point—I understand why the hon. Gentleman is going on about NEETs—but will he look at the new book launched on Wednesday by Oxford university, edited by Richard Pring, and especially the section on NEETs, which talks about the danger of even using the NEET category, as it can lead people towards rather bad answers in public policy?

David Willetts: I have had this conversation with Professor Pring, and I want to make a further point about NEETs in a moment. Let me reiterate: the fact that we have had this economic growth across the west is not the point. I am quoting from the OECD documents on what has happened to NEETs in Britain compared with what happened in other advanced countries and across time. We have an obligation to explain these two trends in the wrong direction.
	Let me turn to the practical measures that could be brought forward to tackle some of these problems. My list overlaps with some of the list given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, which is a sign of progress for both of us. It is not quite the same, but let me work through the options that are available. My list focuses on teenagers and beyond. The Minister said in passing that I was not a fan of Sure Start—but I think that it does an excellent job. However, I am sceptical about what has been called early-years determinism, which says if we do not fix children's problems by the time they reach the age of three, we might as well give up. We must not become so obsessed with the early years that we forget the importance of providing opportunities for teenagers and adult learners. Sometimes the emphasis on early years has been so strong that we have lost sight of what happens later in life.

Angela Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining his position, but he has misrepresented the Government. We have never suggested that we should give up on anything beyond early years, but we feel very strongly that support for early years is a crucial foundation for later development. He said that children's experience in their early years need not determine their destiny, but the evidence is that those years can have a very great impact. If we ignore the early years, it is much more difficult to catch up later.

David Willetts: I do not think that children's opportunities can or should be determined by their experience in the early years. Early years matter, but I expect my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will speak later in the debate about what has happened to adult learning opportunities. The absolute decline of more than 1 million adult learning places suggests that there has been such an exclusive focus on early years that the opportunities for people later on in life to reshape their careers and get new skills have indeed been reduced.
	I want to return to working through my list. The first item about which I think that the Minister and I agree is the importance of careers advice. I want to refer to the Nuffield-Rathbone study—another version of that research was published this week—but my interpretation is slightly different from the Minister's. It is easy to say that there is a problem of aspiration, and the report does contain some evidence in that regard, but the Nuffield-Rathbone researchers present a somewhat different argument.
	Interviews were conducted with young people who were NEETs or otherwise disengaged from education and so unlikely to go to university. The study said:
	"At the workshops with young people, all of the participants expressed some form of aspiration, many of which were highly specific...they were able to express clear and precise aspirations."
	Those young people aspired to conventional jobs, such as chef, solicitor, holiday rep, bar worker, plumber and so on but, as the study went on to say,
	"it was also clear that they did not have a planned trajectory for achieving those aspirations".
	The study added that they were pessimistic about where they would be in 10 years' time.
	If anything, the problem has to do with the routes to achieving aspirations. Young people have to find their way through a maze if they want to get the A-levels that they need to get on the course that is best for fulfilling their aspirations. Some very ingenious traps have been laid to send them down the wrong route. It would be perfectly reasonable for a person to think that a law A-level would be a good route to becoming a lawyer, but we know that it is not a particularly good path to studying law at university or beyond. It is therefore not a good way to achieve aspirations in the law.
	I remember a fascinating interview on "Woman's Hour" a few weeks ago. A young woman engineer had come up with an ingenious device to serve as a low-energy fridge for the third world. It comprised two containers, one inside the other: the external one held soil or grass that absorbed water, whose evaporation cooled the contents of the internal container. The interviewer said to the inventor, "But you didn't do engineering at university." The young woman replied, "No one told me I needed to do maths for that, so I couldn't do it." It is clear that there are people with great aptitudes and aspirations who are being let down because they are not being given a route through the maze. That is why careers advice is so important.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech, but all the research done by the Select Committee and the Skills Commission, which I co-chair, is that the quality of information, advice and guidance for kids from economically challenged backgrounds is very poor. In contrast, middle-class children have a network of uncles, aunts and other people who are graduates and have professional experience and so they get high-quality advice to back up their aspirations.

David Willetts: I accept that. That is why the Government's various changes to the careers service over the past 10 years have really not helped. I do not think that the quality of careers advice, or the creation of Connexions, has helped at all. We believe that there should be a professional all-age careers advice service that independently assists young people who are making their way in the world. There have been at least two sets of changes. The dismantling of the Careers Service as it existed in 1997 was a mistake. The chopping and changing on Connexions has not helped. We attach a large amount of importance to independent careers advice. The Minister has to accept that the Government's record of chopping and changing, and of focusing on Connexions instead of independent careers advice, has not helped young people through the maze that confronts them. So the first item on my list is better careers advice from a genuine, independent, professional careers service.
	The second item on my list is internships. I remember the launch in January of the national internship scheme by the former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), using that well-known device, an interview with  The Daily Telegraph. He identified Microsoft and Barclays as companies that would join that scheme. I hope that the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, who will wind up the debate, can give us some more information about that. Since then, Barclays and Microsoft have made it clear that they already run internship schemes. They seem to have no proposals to change them in any way. We have heard about lists of places in a graduate talent pool that has been launched.
	I received a written answer today from the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property. I had tried to identify how seriously the Government were taking the new internship scheme by finding out how much money they had allocated to it. So far as I can tell from his answer, they have put £800,000 into a website. I have to say that it is not at all clear how the 5,000 extra internships are to be financed, or what has happened to the national internship scheme beyond the work on that website on opportunities. That website may be admirable, but it is not quite what his previous boss launched in January.
	What has happened to the national internship scheme, and what resources are the Government putting behind it? I am interested in that, because we understand and accept the evidence, which is absolutely clear: the concentration of internships in London and the south-east, and restricted access to them, is a barrier. That is why the Social Mobility Foundation, and its work with internships in this House, is such an excellent initiative. That was the second item on my list.
	The third item on the list, of course, is the "three As at A-level" challenge. To get into the competitive professions, which often select from a relatively small group of universities, one needs very good A-level grades. There are a variety of attempts to tackle the problem. We have to be wary of any system that just chucks applicants into the bin because they have been to private school, or because we think that they come from an affluent background. We need measures that are clear, defensible and well understood.
	The scheme that has impressed me most is that at King's College, which aims at broadening access to Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' school of medicine. King's College has created up to 50 extra places a year, on top of its mainstream recruitment, for students from state schools in 15 of the poorest London boroughs. It accepts them with A-level grades down to two Bs and a C, but they are subject to an internationally recognised aptitude test, so that there is an objective test of their merit; the scheme is not simply an exercise in social selection. The places are additional, so no one with good grades misses out. There is also an extra year—an American-style foundation year—to bring those students up to the level that is necessary if they are to be properly trained and are to qualify as doctors.
	Of course, one can only leave that medical school as a doctor, with a proper qualification, if one has achieved exactly the same high level as others have had to achieve before. None of us wants to have heart surgery performed by a consultant who may not have been very good at it, but who at least came from a poor background. There comes a point when sheer objective standards matter, and one can pass only if one has achieved those standards. That seems an admirable initiative. Again, I hoped that we might hear more from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who opened the debate, about the Department's ideas on how that initiative could be extended.
	There are two other items on our list of five. The fourth item is skills apprenticeships and better routes from apprenticeships to university. The Minister said that the UCAS points system would include apprenticeships, but that is easier said than done. I have had conversations with UCAS about that, as I am sure the Ministers will have had, but the UCAS application form and website are unclear and there is very little about apprenticeships.
	There is a lot of information about the value attached to music grades, for example, and a reference to the value attached to a horsemanship qualification, but trying to track down the value attached to an apprenticeship is not at all easy. UCAS says that its problem, which invokes a separate debate that we have had on other occasions, is that there is such a diversity of training schemes called apprenticeships. The term "apprenticeships" no longer involves simply level 3, but level 2, so it is difficult for UCAS to include apprenticeships automatically on its form. If the Minister, in his winding-up speech, were to flesh out what the other Minister said in her opening speech about exactly how all those apprenticeships will involve UCAS, that would be very interesting. We strongly support such apprenticeships, and I have urged UCAS to do better on identifying them.

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, but what is his view on the solution that the panel received in evidence? There has been a huge growth in the number of apprenticeships, and we can argue about whether that is right or wrong, but opening up such opportunities to a mix of in-college and on-the-job training seems to be a broadly good thing. There is, none the less, a transitional problem: when only 0.2 per cent. of apprentices are able to go on to further or higher education, there is at best a silo problem in our training and education system. What would he do about that?

David Willetts: We support apprenticeships, but part of the problem is the new broader definition of apprenticeships, which includes level 2 as well as level 3 and is part of the UCAS problem. So far as I know, no other advanced western country calls level 2 "apprenticeships"; by and large that description is reserved for level 3, as it used to be here.
	Using some of the Train to Gain budget, we have proposed skills scholarships aimed specifically at funding apprentices to go to university. We made the initial suggestion because the figures are so low. If the Minister were to give us reliable figures, we would appreciate it, because they are hard to pin down. We suggested funding 2,000 apprentices to go to university and take courses that would enable them to develop the skills that they had already displayed in their apprenticeship, and we thought that it would be a very good use of a modest part of the Train to Gain budget.

Barry Sheerman: We are enjoying what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is not the real gap between the traditional three to four-year apprenticeship in engineering—the crème de la crème—and the average one-year apprenticeship in retailing and distribution? In between, we need health authorities, local government, universities—everybody—to create apprenticeships so that there is a much broader mix of apprenticeships. Then they will go through into higher education.

David Willetts: I completely agree, and have nothing to add to that excellent comment. It is one reason why we, through parliamentary questions, have been trying to track the record, not least of Departments and quangos, on apprenticeships. It is a very mixed record indeed, with large swathes of Whitehall not having taken on apprenticeships but giving a very poor performance, which we hope will now improve.
	The final item on my list of five barriers to overcome involves opportunities later in life. Many professions tell us that the broader social mix of their recruitment comes from the older people whom they recruit. Sadly, they are able to reach out more widely at that level than they are through the conventional route of 18-year-olds who go to university and are then recruited. Of course, we have to do better with the 18-year-olds and the university route, but opportunities in later life do matter, and we should not forget universities' continuing unhappiness about the equivalent level qualification—ELQ—policy, which means that if someone already has a university qualification in something completely unrelated, and if they want to go back to university and study something else many years later, it is very hard to change career and direction. We should not forget the disappearance of other adult learning places, either.
	The Open university, a fantastic institution that does such a good job in spreading access to higher education, has lost £30 million as a result of the ELQ policy. Birkbeck college is an institution with which many on the Labour Benchers have an association: when the ELQ policy was proposed, it lost one third of its students at a cost of £7.8 million. That such institutions, which are particularly devoted to giving people a second chance, were worst hit by the ELQ policy shows that there was a failure to ensure that people have opportunities later in life.
	I enjoyed the Minister's speech and I look forward to what the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) will say about his report. If his final proposals match the excellent analysis in the opening two reports, we have much to look forward to.

Alan Milburn: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). At some points in his speech, his insight and knowledge were in danger of creating a progressive consensus in the House; then, however, he lapsed into criticism rather deeper than I would have expected from him. It is also a great pleasure to follow the Minister, whom I congratulate on her appointment to an important post. I know that the work that she is and will be doing on social exclusion, and her knowledge from first-hand experience, will be brought to bear and make an enormous difference to the Government's policy.
	I very much welcome this debate, and I thank the Government and the business managers for finding time for it. It is about an important issue. For me at least, how we ensure that as wide as possible a pool of talent gets access and opportunities to pursue a professional career goes to the heart of what a modern Britain should look like. I am proud to have served as part of a Government who have worked so hard over so many years to open up more opportunities to people. One of the things to strike me, following the contribution of the hon. Member for Havant, is that in one sense there is a progressive consensus nowadays in the House. All parties have come to the view that ensuring that Britain is a mobile society is a perfectly legitimate objective—and, indeed, a priority—for public policy.
	This debate gives me an opportunity to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for asking me to chair the panel on fair access to the professions. I also thank my fellow panel members and my excellent Cabinet Office strategy unit secretariat for their hard work.
	The debate comes at a particularly timely point in our considerations because we have just finished our call for evidence. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on Monday, when I was before the Children, Schools and Families Committee, which he chairs, I have been staggered by the response. There have been 13,000 pages of evidence from a rich variety of organisations. Most importantly of all, we have heard from young people themselves, who have had some stark, insightful things to say to us. We have also heard from employers and representatives of trade unions, schools, universities, professional organisations and voluntary-sector bodies.
	That fantastic response indicates that the broad issue of social mobility and the narrower issue of access to the professions strike a chord in the British psyche. They do so for a number of reasons. First, people nowadays recognise the growing importance of professional employment opportunities. As we speak, one in three of all jobs in the British economy are either managerial or professional. As the Minister said a moment or two ago, the number of such jobs is set to rise dramatically in the years to come. Some of the evidence that we have received suggests that fully nine in 10 of all future job opportunities in this country in the next decade or so will be professional in nature. It is possible that once retirements are taken into account, the country will need to recruit a further 7 million professional workers over the course of the next decade or so. At a time of deep and painful global economic recession, it is very easy to forget that our professions—our armed services, our cultural industries, our doctors, our lawyers—are genuinely among the leaders in the world. We should therefore have confidence in the fact that Britain is incredibly well placed to compete in the more knowledge-based economies that we are bound to see in the years to come.
	Secondly, if the trend of recent decades continues into future decades, and we see falling demand for unskilled labour, as we are bound to do, and rising demand for skilled labour, as will probably occur, there is a terrible risk that we will end up with people who, without qualifications or skills, risk being left behind economically and stranded socially. Already, in this city of London, well over half of all jobs are professional jobs—and a jolly good thing too. In my part of the world, the north-east, the proportion is under one third. Unless appropriate action is taken in the years to come, we risk seeing more employment segregation, not less.
	Thirdly, people feel that these social developments offer a great opportunity as well as a great challenge. The generation of the late 1950s, of which I am part, were the beneficiaries of a mobility in society that came about because of a change in the economy—what the academics call more room at the top. In simple terms, more service jobs and more professional jobs became available, which benefited both men and women—particularly, perhaps, women, allied with the huge social changes that we saw in the 1960s. However, a more fluid society was not something that simply happened by chance: it happened in part because a big policy choice was made. It came about as a consequence of Government action, not just inevitable economic and social change. Having won a pretty gruelling war in which so many people in our country made such enormous sacrifices, during that decade—the 1950s—there was a shared determination to win the peace.
	I suppose that that commitment found its expression in the huge achievements of the post-war Labour Government—universal education, full employment and a modern welfare state. Millions of people received opportunities that they would not otherwise have done—me included. I have been very fortunate in my life. I grew up on a council estate and ended up in the Cabinet. I sometimes worry whether that might still be possible today; our ambition, surely, has to be to make it so, and I believe that we can. Given the huge changes that we are going to see not just in our national economy but in the global economy, we can, provided that we make the right policy choices, have a second great wave of social mobility in our country, where new opportunities for this generation and future generations are opened up.
	Fourthly, we have to be candid in this debate. We can discuss to what extent we have reduced inequality or tackled poverty in recent years, but we can accept that there has, at a minimum, been progress: there are far fewer poor people than there were. That is a great achievement. However, two decades after Mrs. Thatcher declared that the closed shop was dead in the workplace, we still have too much of a closed shop society. The way that I characterise it is this: we might have raised the glass ceiling, but we certainly have not, as yet, broken through it. Among the evidence that the hon. Member for Havant and my hon. Friend the Minister referred to is that which we have received about the nature of professional employment. The worrying thing is that despite the many commendable efforts on the part of the professions—all the initiatives, schemes, mentorships and so on—we have seen greater, not less, social exclusivity. It is not just the fact that three in four of our judges are privately educated. It is not just the fact that fully half of our senior civil servants received a private education. It is not even the fact that although only 7 per cent. of the population attend an independent school, fully two thirds of the Members of the House of Lords and one third of the Members of this place were privately educated. It is broader than that.
	Over time, social exclusivity has got worse rather than better across all the professions. The panel's first report indicates that the older generation of today's professionals, people born, like I was, about 1958—a long time ago—on average came from families with incomes 17 per cent. above that of the average family. For the younger generation of today's professionals, the people born about 1970, that figure had risen to 27 per cent. That is the generation of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property. On average, today's doctors and lawyers come from families with incomes two thirds above that of the average family. As the hon. Member for Havant interestingly pointed out, guess which profession has become the most socially exclusive over that period? I use only one word—journalism.
	There has been a dramatic change, and the weight of that evidence points to one thing. Despite the progress that has been made over recent times, there is an enormous chasm between where we are and where we need to be if we are to realise the social benefits of a huge potential increase in professional employment opportunities in the years to come.
	This is not just an issue for those at the bottom of society. Too many able kids from an average income background or from middle-class families find themselves losing out in the race for a professional job, so this is an issue not for the minority in our country but for the majority. It matters to what President Clinton once famously referred to as "the forgotten middle classes". If the aspirations that most hard-working families have for themselves, their children and their communities are thwarted, social responsibility and individual endeavour are inevitably undermined.
	What has struck me forcibly during the course of the panel's proceedings, having listened to young people from a wide variety of backgrounds, is the emergence of what I call the "not for the likes of me" syndrome. People might say, "I am thinking of becoming a nurse, but it is not for the likes of me to become a doctor", or "I might go into hairdressing, but I would never consider a career in law". Something quite profound is happening. When one in two kids whose parents are professionals are willing to consider a professional career, that is a fantastic thing. But when only one in six kids from average income backgrounds—not the most disadvantaged—are willing to consider a professional career, surely we have an aspiration gap that we have to find a way of bridging.

John Hayes: I am so excited by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and the one that preceded it, that I am obliged to intervene to ask whether he agrees that social cohesion is particularly damaged by what he has just described. It is not that people's aspiration or ambitions have changed, but their means of achieving their ambitions seem ever more remote, leaving them discouraged, depressed, even hostile.

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very important point. One thing that I am absolutely convinced about, not just from anecdotal evidence but from academic evidence, is that the problem is not that young people do not have aspirations, it is that they are blocked in fulfilling them. It is not that the country does not have talent—to coin a phrase, Britain's got talent. It's got lots of talent. The issue is how we can unleash it.
	Not everybody will aspire to be, or have the aptitude to be, a doctor or a lawyer—of course not. Not everybody will want to come into this place. However, for those who do, surely our objective as a society must be to ensure an equal opportunity, in the best sense of the phrase, for them to achieve that. I fear that that does not exist today.

Barry Sheerman: I am fascinated by my right hon. Friend's work in listening to young people. Our Committee has also listened to young people, and we have found that physical mobility is a challenge in our country today. When we had national service, in the period to which my right hon. Friend referred, young working-class men in particular were very mobile—they went around the country and around the world for the first time. More and more young people are now stuck on their estates or in their towns and are not very physically mobile. Middle-class children go away to university and are very mobile. Physical mobility is important in raising aspirations.

Alan Milburn: When I compare my kids' experiences and life chances with those of my childhood, it shows that we are living in a different world. It is amazing, and something to cherish about modern society that, by and large, there are fantastic opportunities for more and more people. We live in a world of opportunity. Notwithstanding the problems of economic recession, we live in a world of greater plenty than ever. However, my hon. Friend is right that, at the bottom end, there is ghettoisation of disadvantage. We should all, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, be deeply concerned about that for the reason that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned: the good of our society. That is what we should be bothered about in this place. I therefore believe that the work of my fellow panel members and that of the hon. Member for Havant on social mobility is so important.
	I am pleased that social mobility has become such a cause célèbre in modern political discourse. We have a common problem, to which we might not have common solutions, but we are determined to do something about the dichotomy of opportunity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred.

Linda Gilroy: I am sorry to have missed the early part of the debate. I will read it in  Hansard and examine the detail of the work of my right hon. Friend's panel. Has he studied of necessity of allowing entry to the professions at more mature ages? Does he recollect from his experience as Secretary of State for Health the advent of the Peninsula medical school and the way in which it opens up opportunities for people to enter the medical profession?

Alan Milburn: Oh happy days! Yes, I do, and I also well remember my hon. Friend's championing of Peninsula's cause. She knows that Sir John Tooke, who does a fantastic job at Peninsula, is one of the panel members. It is not only one of the most progressive but one of the best medical schools in the country—I should have said "and", not "but" in that sentence. It is one of the best because it is one of the most progressive. John is an impressive person who brings great knowledge and insight to the panel's work. My hon. Friend is right. I think that the hon. Member for Havant made the same point in his contribution.
	There is a danger in debates on education. There are strong adherents to the importance of early years education, and there are those who say, "What really counts is pre-16", while others say, "In the modern world, where skills are changing ever faster, it's about what happens post-16." However, it is not a case of either/or. We must move from a mindset of educational opportunity having to be about a one-off chance—it is not; it must be a chance throughout life. If ever there were a need to realise the slogan, "lifelong learning", it is now, in the modern world. The world is changing so fast and knowledge is expanding so quickly that if we limit children to a one-off opportunity at 11, 16 or 18, we will do the current and future generations an enormous disservice.
	Of course, no single lever can prise open opportunities in the professions and no single organisation can achieve that. The subject is far too complex. It is as much about family networks as careers advice; as much about standards in schools as university admission procedures, and as much about work experience as career development opportunities. The panel is looking at all those aspects and many more, but it might be helpful to the House to know that we are focusing on a handful of issues in particular and to hear where we are in our consideration of them.
	First, how do we provide many more young people with practical exposure to the professions at an early enough stage in their education? There is no shortage of fantastic schemes, including school outreach and mentoring schemes, run by fabulous organisations such as the Brightside Trust, the Sutton Trust, the Citizenship Foundation and the Social Mobility Foundation. Exposure to what it means to be a doctor, a lawyer, a journalist or even—heaven help us—a politician and hearing first hand what it means to do the job is particularly important, as we have discussed, for kids who come from families who have no such exposure to professional careers. Such schemes often have a bigger impact on children's future career development than school work experience programmes do, which are crying out for a radical overhaul. Good though the initiatives that I have mentioned are, however, they are pretty fragmented and deeply unco-ordinated. To give one example, only 60 of the 260 combined cadet forces, from which so many future armed service officers are drawn, are based in state schools. The rest are based in independent schools.
	That, like so much else, is something that we have to change. So too is the way in which we provide advice and guidance, so that young people can make an informed choice about the career that is right for them. This is the second area on which the panel is rightly focusing attention. Like the hon. Member for Havant, I believe that a fundamental overhaul is needed. We have a more complex labour market than ever before. More than ever, navigating young people through the choices, opportunities and complexities that they now confront requires good careers advice. Yet one survey of students found that three in four were unhappy with the quality of the advice that they had received. A further survey, commissioned by the panel from the very good careers website icould and released today, found that 70 per cent. of under-14-year-olds say that they have had no careers advice and that 45 per cent. of over-14-year-olds say that they have had no advice or very limited advice. Girls rate the advice rather worse than boys do.
	During all our proceedings, all our hearings and all our evidence-gathering sessions, I have heard barely one good word about the careers work of the Connexions service. I have no doubt that other aspects of its work are absolutely exemplary. However, I can only conclude that its focus on the small minority of vulnerable young people with deep, entrenched and complex problems is unfortunately distracting it from providing good careers advice to the majority of young people. That is simply not good enough. I know that there has been some change, but in my view the service requires a quite radical rethink. I can tell the House that my panel will be making recommendations on precisely how we should do so.
	Thirdly, getting a professional job nowadays requires more than aptitude and ability and more, even, than a qualification. People also have to be able to demonstrate work experience. Four out of five employers say that they go on to employ interns. Internships have become, as it were, a new rung on the modern professional career ladder. All too often, however, internships are handed out on the basis of who someone knows, not what they know. Too often, what counts is family connections, rather than open advertisement. That, too, must change. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, most internships in careers such as law are overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the south-east. Because interns usually have to work for free, many young people from average family backgrounds are simply priced out of the intern market altogether.
	Again, that is an area on which the panel will be making recommendations for change.
	Fourthly, the way in which employers and universities go about selecting their entrants will of course determine the future social profile of the professions. Some make a big effort to recruit widely; others recruit very narrowly. In the end, it is for employers to decide how they go about recruiting their staff, but whereas nowadays we collect and publish data on the gender and racial make-up of organisations to ensure that those such as the civil service are what they say on the tin—and are equal opportunities employers—we neither collect nor publish comparable data on social background. In my view, we need to think very carefully about that.

John Hayes: Does not that tie in closely with the point made by the Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee about the white working-class youngsters who, with few champions and feeling left out, fare worse in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes? We have made great progress with minority groups, but little progress with those young people.

Alan Milburn: It is important in these debates to ensure that the emphasis is on all groups and not just on some. However, we also have to recognise that different people from different backgrounds have different starting points in life. There is no equality of life chances at the beginning of life, and public policy will quite rightly want to intervene to ensure that life chances are made available subsequently. My point is a simple one, however. I believe that things have fundamentally changed in, for example, the civil service. There was a time when the debate in the civil service centred on its being all white and all male. That might still be overwhelmingly true, but it is less so. What was the change that made the biggest difference? Of course, some will say that it was the changes in legislation that we passed in this place, but what really made the difference was changes in information. That is an area that we need deeply to consider.

Barry Sheerman: I fear that Quentin Letts will have another go at me for making this point. Let us look at the diversity of the BBC, which it brags about. According to many criteria, including ethnicity and gender, it is a very diverse employer, but when it comes to social class, we see that people who studied in independent schools are hugely over-represented there. I shall now wait to see the  Daily Mail.

Alan Milburn: Yes, I have a feeling it will be coming my hon. Friend's way.
	I guess that we knew that, although it is just a guess. That is the point, I suppose. I guess that we had a hunch about it, and we have some rudimentary data, but they are pretty rudimentary. This is an issue of accountability for public sector bodies, including the BBC, to consider. They are funded from the public purse—from the taxpayer's money. They must ensure that they are as broadly representative as possible of the population as a whole that they serve. However, the only way that we will ever know whether that is happening is by collecting and disseminating the relevant data.

Barry Sheerman: I recently wrote an article in the  Fabian Review that gave me some notoriety. In it, I pointed out that people who are paid from the public purse, including vice-chancellors, head teachers, the heads of children's services and those who work for the BBC, should be expected to send their children to state schools.

Alan Milburn: That is a slightly more contentious point. Is it time for my hon. Friend to leave?
	We know that when universities broaden their base for recruitment, it does not lower levels of achievement. Figures from the Higher Education Funding Council show that students from state schools, once they get into university, perform at the same level as—or at a higher level than—students from private schools who might have got higher grades at A-level. The hon. Member for Havant referred to the fantastic scheme at King's college. In my view, it is an exemplar that all universities and employers would do well to heed. Why? Because it contains this simple lesson: it is not ability but opportunity that is unevenly distributed. The job of universities in particular is to ensure that opportunities are as widely distributed as possible, but some would find it hard to make that claim right now.
	Fifthly, entry to a professional job increasingly requires a university degree, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. In the old days, as he said, journalists could work their way up from a local paper to Fleet street. Nowadays, Fleet street no longer exists and journalism is a graduate entry profession. Nursing and social care are now joining a long list of professions increasingly becoming graduate entry. There may be, and there often are, very good reasons for that, but there is also the danger that qualification inflation will simply make these professions more socially exclusive than they need to be.
	What I find interesting about so much professional work in recent years—the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) rightly defended the professions—can be seen in the teaching profession, which has recently sought to disaggregate and devolve some of its functions to non-graduates, so we now have classroom assistants helping teachers in the classroom. We have health care assistants helping nurses on the wards and we have police community support officers helping police officers on the streets. I think that there is an important lesson to be learned from that, which is how the professions can begin to create new ladders of opportunity by devolving functions down rather than always seeming to take functions and qualification levels up. I can tell the House that my panel is looking at how to extend such opportunities.
	Many of the panel's recommendations will, of course, be for the professions to action, and I have seen a lot of willingness on their part to do so. The most progressive parts of the professions are already opening their doors to a wider cohort of talent. I hope that when we produce the report in the autumn, it will very much go with the grain of those efforts. Equally, where there remains evidence of a closed-shop mentality, I hope that we will be fearless in exposing and tackling it. I do not believe that it is only in the country's interest for the professions to fish in a wider pool of talent, as it is in the professions' own interests, too. If the professions are properly to serve the interests of a Britain that is characterised by its rich diversity more than ever before, they, too, need more fully to embrace the notion of diversity. Despite some commendable efforts, that is not, by and large, where I believe they are today.
	Achieving that is not just a job for the professions. Of course, they can do a lot more to put their house in order, but what they cannot do is instil in kids an aspiration to pursue a professional career. That has to come from individual citizens, their families and their communities. Neither can the professions create the framework within which individuals will have many more opportunities to realise their aspirations to progress. That is properly the job of the Government.
	There is a broader canvas here, which both the hon. Member for Havant and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office touched on in their remarks. In my view—I stress that this is my view and not necessarily that of the panel—it is a canvas on which we need to begin to paint a rather different picture. I said earlier that I am very proud of what this Government have done to open up more opportunities to more people. Like many others, I would have liked progress to have been faster, but it is no mean achievement when the Sutton Trust can report that after decades of social mobility declining in our country, it has now at the very least bottomed out.
	That is progress. It is also progress when primary schools in the poorest areas have improved almost twice as fast as those in the most affluent, and when in the secondary school sector, city academies—despite having twice the number of kids on free school meals—are improving their performance at four times the national average. It is also progress when, notwithstanding our debate about early years education, this country has finally begun to learn the lessons from the Scandinavian countries where universal child care has for many years brought enhanced mobility and narrowed inequality.
	This, for me, is a fundamental point: the desire to increase social mobility cannot be a substitute for the desire for a more equal society. It is no coincidence that countries as different as Sweden, Australia and the Netherlands are among the most socially fluid in the world. They are also among the most fair in the world. That is why the Government's efforts—despite the obvious challenges—to abolish child poverty are so important, and that is why I hope all parties in the House will make similar firm commitments, backed by firm resources, to achieve that objective.
	Breaking the relationship between class origin and class destination is a battle for the long term, which requires an holistic approach. Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel prize for economics, once rightly said families can suffer not only economic but cultural, educational and housing disadvantage. We need to make a fundamental break from the approach that has so often dominated policy in the past. We need to move from the traditional welfare state approach, which seeks to correct the outcome of market-driven inequalities such as family poverty or low wages retrospectively, towards an approach that proactively reduces inequality and advances mobility by tackling the roots of those problems rather than their symptoms. That is not a job for any one part of the Government; it is a job for the whole Government.
	Let me give an example. We know that in a modern, knowledge-based economy, education will become ever more the motor of mobility, but despite the good progress of recent years, the attainment gap remains far too wide. A child who is not receiving free school meals is still much more likely to get five good GCSEs than one who is. Less than half the number of black Afro-Caribbean boys get five good GCSEs, although the national average is closer to two thirds.
	Like many others, I applaud the Government's efforts to break that cycle of educational disadvantage. City academies, trust schools, a focus on personalised learning and the new soft skill development described in the Rose review are making a difference, and I think that they will continue to do so in future. However, I believe that we need to do more still to ensure that good schools are just as accessible to poorer parents as they are to the better-off. The truth is that the more wealth people have, the more choice they are given. If they are wealthy enough, they can opt their children out of poorer schools and take them to private schools. I have no objection to that. Alternatively, they can supplement state education with private tuition, or use the most potent of all market mechanisms and buy a house adjacent to a good school.
	By and large, selection by academic ability has disappeared from our education system, but let us not pretend that selection by social position has disappeared. Unfortunately, we still have an education system in which affluence buys attainment, and that must restrict mobility. There are 25,000 schools in the country. In the overwhelming majority standards are rising, but in 2007, 638 secondary schools containing around 600,000 kids were failing to secure five good GCSEs for 30 per cent. of their pupils. Overwhelmingly, those schools have been consistently underperforming for many years, and guess what? They are located in the areas of greatest social disadvantage.
	I have long advocated that, in addition to the raft of measures that the Government have rightly introduced to improve standards and discipline and provide good teachers, and in addition to all the other structural changes that have been made, one further step should be taken. Kids and their parents in disadvantaged areas must be given precisely what kids and parents in more affluent areas get, which is more than preference: it is choice.
	My proposal to do so, in which I have long believed, is for those parents to be given an education credit—some call it a voucher; I am not bothered what it is called, but what it does—worth perhaps 150 per cent. of the cost of educating their child, so that they can take their child from the school that is failing to deliver good results to another state school that is delivering results. I know that there will be many objections and concerns about such a proposal, but I do not believe that it is right—or that it should be tolerated—to have a situation where too many disadvantaged kids are still let down by the schools system. Overwhelmingly, I repeat, school standards are rising, but sadly the areas where they rise least and where most progress needs to be made are in the poorest areas. The only way in which I believe that can be done is by empowering parents to have greater choice.
	That brings me to my final point. I do not believe that we will get social mobility moving in this country if we think that somehow or other it is purely economic distribution that is our problem. We will not get social mobility moving if we think that it is only wealth that is unevenly distributed. It is also power. When you are poor you have precious little power. The sense of hopelessness that clouds the poorest communities in our country grows out of disempowerment. If Britain is to get moving again socially, people need to be able not just to get a job, training or child care but to enjoy far greater control over, and have a bigger say in, how they lead their lives. Beating crime, creating jobs and rebuilding estates all help, but I have long believed that that cloud of despondency can only be dispelled through a modern participatory politics that allows both local communities and individual citizens more evenly and directly to share in power.
	One thing is certain. Modern Britain cannot work if it harbours a closed shop mentality. Our economy will not prosper unless we harness the talent of all of those who are able to and aspire to make a contribution. Our society will not work unless people feel that their endeavours and efforts are suitably rewarded. That is why I hope that the work of the panel that I am honoured to chair will help renew our determination in this place systematically to unblock every obstacle that stands in the way of individuals being able to realise their own aspirations to progress. That for me is what modern government is all about and that is why I very much welcome this debate.

Jennifer Willott: It is a daunting prospect to follow such a knowledgeable and interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and to have to confess that I am one of the third of Members of this House educated in an independent school. I am feeling waves of class guilt this afternoon. I welcome the Minister to her new role.
	Clearly the debate is topical. All three main parties have had commissions of some kind or instituted research into social mobility. It is clearly an important issue to people all across the political spectrum. As the matter has been discussed across the spectrum, some interesting views have been expressed in blogs and in political commentary in newspapers and the media.
	There have been mutterings from some quarters that wealthy parents obviously will have children who do better because the parents are likely to be more educated, more intelligent and more motivated and will expect their children to do better, and that that is the real explanation for the lack of social mobility in Britain. There may be something in that, but there are also clear signs that children in Britain from disadvantaged backgrounds who show great potential are being let down. A lot of statistics have been flying back and forth this afternoon, but one in particular sends shivers down my spine: tests on pre-school children at age three show that the initially least bright children from the richest fifth of households overtake the initially brightest children from the poorest fifth of households between the ages of five and 10. That shows not only that there are many influences at play other than genes, but that that happens remarkably fast. I find it horrifying that from the age of three in just two years we see a marked change in children's opportunities.
	Education and upbringing are an influence. Those who get a superior education in a school that does not have discipline problems and where the other pupils are keen to learn will have an advantage that sticks with them into later life, and the impact of a private education is much greater than we would expect. For example, students who have a private education are 55 times more likely to be accepted into one of the five best universities in the UK. That is far higher than we would expect as a result of normal opportunity, genetics, parents' expectations and so forth.
	The Government are keen to tackle this issue; they have been talking about it, and they have put in place many measures over the past few years. However, the same barriers are still in place, and some of them are even greater than before. Each year, 60,000 people who were in the top 20 per cent. of their school cohort do not reach higher education. That is a lot of people whose potential is being wasted as they enter adulthood. Although the Government have focused on education, there has not been enough progress towards making a step change.
	There is considerable evidence that the introduction and expansion of universal education systems in the UK and broadly across western Europe have not led to increases in relative social mobility.

John Hayes: Indeed, the hon. Lady might go further: I would go so far as to say that the expansion of university education over my lifetime has cemented social division.

Jennifer Willott: There is an argument for that. Some of the statistics on graduate training show that that has led to certain divisions, and the increase in people going through university has led to the possibility for professions to insist on a degree. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that it is not a good thing to encourage more people to acquire more qualifications through further or higher education; we should all be striving to achieve that.

John Hayes: I was making the point not that that is a bad thing, but that it is a good thing that is largely the preserve of one class of people. Progress in working-class people entering higher education has been stultifyingly slow. Consequently, most middle-class young people now achieve in terms of higher education, whereas most working-class people do not. That is highly injurious to social mobility.

Jennifer Willott: There is certainly a class divide in which children go to university and the universities to which they go, and I shall return to that issue shortly.
	I agree with the Minister about the importance of early-years education. There is a lot of evidence showing that if we do not sort out some problems at a very early stage, it is significantly harder and more expensive, although not impossible, to solve them later. Making the investment at a very early stage pays dividends in the long run by helping children to fulfil their potential later in life.
	I have concerns, however, that where investment has been put in at an early stage, such as in children's centres and Sure Start projects, there is evidence that, contrary to the Government's expectations, middle-class parents have been much better at accessing that additional support than the families at which it is supposed to be targeted. In an unexpected way, the disadvantage of some of the most disadvantaged families has thus been further entrenched.
	One Liberal Democrat proposal that could help to address this problem is to increase further the availability of free child care. I have encountered a number of constituency cases where people have been unable to return to training and education after having children because they are not able to access child care tax credits unless they are working. There would be significant advantages to providing wider access to free, very high-quality child care for parents who want to go back to study and to train, particularly those who have not had the opportunity to do so the first time around. I am thinking, for example, of young mothers whose children are likely to start off disadvantaged if that is not provided.
	One of the reasons why such provision could have a significant impact is that parents who have a low level of skills are less likely to be able to help their children as they go through school. Some 5 million adults in Britain are classified as functionally illiterate, and 17 million adults have basic numeracy problems. Clearly, their children are going to have fewer advantages when they go through the schools system, because their parents are able to provide less support for doing homework and so on. No matter how bright the children are, another layer of disadvantage is ingrained.
	As has been discussed, such circumstances also have an impact on expectations. There is evidence that the primary source of expectations in life is one's parents—that seems to be common sense—but the surrounding community and one's school peers also have a significant impact. Someone whose parents went to university is much more likely to expect to go there too. Other parents want what they did not have for themselves and therefore really push their children to go to university, to progress and to get into the professions, but a worrying number of parents do not have any higher expectations for their children than they have for themselves.
	Last month, I spoke to a lady in south Wales who had just encouraged her daughter to leave school as soon as she turned 16 and could do so—before she did her GCSEs. The mother took that approach because she had hated school, did not trust teachers and thought school was a complete waste of time. That leaves two generations of a family with no qualifications. That is such a waste of potential, and we really need to find ways of circumventing it and ensuring that there remains a way to motivate young people who have potential and to give them expectations and aspirations. We also need to help people who have those things to see where that could lead and to develop.

John Hayes: I promise that this is my last intervention, because it might eat into my own time, and that would be monstrous. I invite the hon. Lady to make a more subtle point about the difference between expectation and ambition. It may well be that people have ambitions and aspirations but do not have expectations. Perhaps that is the problem.

Jennifer Willott: Absolutely, and I think that parents have a very important role to play in that. They may want a lot for their children yet still not believe it is possible for them to achieve it. In such cases, schools and teachers have a very important role to play in building expectations in the children of what can be achieved.
	The Minister and the right hon. Member for Darlington mentioned some of the figures on parents' and young people's expectations of going into the professions. There is a more basic difference in people's expectations of their children going to university. More than a third of parents in the A and B socio-economic groups expect that their children will go to university, whereas the figure is about one in 10 for parents in groups D and E. That marked difference goes back to the point that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has just made. If expectation is not built in, even if somebody has the ambition to do something they will not necessarily have the ability to take the final step to do it. We need to overcome that by creating other role models or children at both primary and secondary school. Leaving it all to secondary school is too late. We need expectation, ambition and aspiration from a much earlier stage.
	Much work has been done to try to get inspirational teachers into schools in deprived areas, and that can make a big difference. My mother-in-law was a maths teacher in a very run-down area of Liverpool, although she was not from that background. Having a diverse range of teachers in schools in deprived areas makes a big difference to pupils who can see different ways for their lives to progress. We need to ensure that we replicate that across the country.
	A role could also be played by former students of such schools who have been successful—perhaps who have gone to university and got professional jobs. They could try to encourage more young people to follow them in their success. We have already heard about schemes that have been introduced in universities, schools and independent bodies, but there are some interesting schemes that are nothing to do with career progression. For example, Allen & Overy, the law firm, has a scheme in which its lawyers are encouraged to help in schools in east London, perhaps providing basic help with reading. That helps the children, because they get personal attention from someone who focuses on them and makes them feel important. It also breaks down barriers if they see that someone who works as a corporate lawyer in the City of London is a normal human being, doing a job that they could perhaps do themselves. It brings the job closer to the young person so that they see that it is something that they could do. It is important to replicate schemes like that to try to break down some of the barriers that are in place.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the role of careers advisers. I agree that they have a crucial role to play, and at a much earlier stage. I was given my first careers advice when I was about 17 and a half—although the advisers did not recommend that I enter Parliament. By that stage, I had already made choices that would limit what I could do, and we need to look at the choices that young people have to make and give them more options.
	Universities could also do a lot more to try to encourage people from more unusual backgrounds to think about attending. My constituency covers Cardiff university, which has a scheme that involves a lot of outreach work in schools in the much more deprived parts of the city. Students work with young people as, effectively, classroom assistants, trying to encourage them to think about university and their options. In particular, female engineering students go into schools to try to encourage young women to think about career options such as engineering that they often will not have considered as a possibility. Given the geographical spread of universities across the country, there is a huge opportunity for them to do more outreach work in schools nearby to encourage young people. There are some very good examples of such schemes already, and it is one important way of breaking down some of the expectational barriers.
	Many young people, especially boys, do not pull their lives together and work out what they want to do until they have left school. If we expect everyone to rely on careers advice during their teens, too many people will fall through the gaps. Hon. Members have already mentioned the need for flexible routes into the professions. Some professions are good at doing that. For example, it is still relatively easy—although less common than it used to be—to go into accountancy through a non-graduate route. Nor is it necessary to be a graduate to pursue Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development qualifications. But more could be done to use people's work experience. As the right hon. Member for Darlington pointed out, there are many divisions in some areas, such as PCSOs working with the police and classroom assistants working with teachers, and it is a big step for those who go into the non-graduate jobs to progress to the other roles.
	We need to consider making it much easier for PCSOs to use their experience to pursue a career in the police, and for classroom assistants to move into teaching. We must recognise that if they have the ability, the experience that they get on the job can be just as useful—if not even more valuable—as university in enabling them to fulfil a career that would otherwise be considered a graduate-only job. A lot of work could be done to help create career paths that would enable people to move, such as having fewer graduate posts so that people who do not have the opportunity to go to university or who realise later on in life what they want to do can progress into the professions.
	Quite a bit has already been said about the need for work experience and internships, and about the barriers that they put up. Clearly, some people find that difficult to access through the necessary contacts or find it expensive. The cost is probably one of the biggest issues for a lot of people from disadvantaged areas. We are just as guilty in this place. A lot of researchers find their work by doing volunteer internships and working in an MP's office, and that puts such a career out of the reach of an awful lot of young people. We need to consider how we recruit staff and try to encourage other people to apply. Internships and work experience are an easy way to get free labour for many of the professions, but they should not be seen as that—because they can be, barriers are being put up that do significant damage to the professions in the long run.
	The cost of internships and so on is not the only cost that puts people off. A lot of the professional training takes longer than other routes into work. Medicine requires a five-year degree, and law a three-year degree followed by one or two years of training. Not only do people face the additional cost of studying for a longer period of time, but they have to put off until later their ability to start earning. That makes it difficult for some people even to contemplate going into those careers. It is just too big a step for them to take right at the beginning. That is one reason why it should be easier to get into those careers later on. Those who had the aspiration at a young age but found the financial barrier too great at the age of 18 would be able to find other ways in through working that enabled them to reach the same end result.
	It is also important that we flag up that this is not just about education. The right hon. Member for Darlington mentioned some of the other great barriers that prevent people from disadvantaged backgrounds from being able to progress into professional roles. Elements as basic as expectations and the drive to succeed are affected by other factors as people are growing up. It is not just parents' expectations that affect people's views and aspirations, but those of friends at school and of the community.
	One thing that has had a significant impact on people's expectations and aspirations over the past few decades has been segregated social housing. It has exacerbated a lot of the problems in areas that are blighted by crime, family problems and health problems, but there is also a lot of evidence that negative forms of social capital have built up in certain geographical areas that are often associated with social housing. There is much more likely to be a culture of worklessness, higher levels of antisocial behaviour and higher levels of drug abuse. There are likely to be a lack of positive role models in the community, negative peer pressure and a poverty of ambition around people as they grow up, and that has had a significant impact on large numbers of communities across the UK.
	That situation is very difficult to unpick, because so many different influences pull down the young people growing up in those communities. We can knock down one barrier by giving them a good education, but if we do not solve the other problems there are still many barriers to overcome. It makes it much more challenging for them to progress out of the social environment in which they have grown up.
	A lot of practical problems are associated with areas where there are concentrations of social housing. For instance, access to private transport is significantly lower, and public transport is often not very good either. That presents a simple, physical barrier to studying, going to job interviews or to working outside the immediate area. Such areas also tend to have poorer-quality public services—not just in education, but in the provision of health, leisure facilities and the other things that children need for self-confidence and a belief in their ability to progress. For instance, it has been shown that sporting activities can have a big impact on young people's ability to work in teams. In turn, that gives them self-confidence and improves their ability to progress, but lack of appropriate facilities can be another disadvantage for people trying to get into work.
	The right hon. Member for Darlington talked about ghettos, and I have described how people in severely deprived areas are affected by practical disadvantages in terms of education, health provision and transport. Young people from such areas are more likely to have lower birth weights and to exhibit later behavioural conditions, and to begin primary school with lower levels of personal, social and emotional development. The fact that they are also likely to have higher levels of communication, language and literacy problems means that even the ones with high intelligence and great potential at an early age are held back. Even if we discount the other factors affecting their lives and concentrate on education, it is very difficult for such young people to break out of their circumstances.
	I turn now to the question of broader inequality in society that the right hon. Member for Darlington raised at the end of his contribution. Social mobility is not the only problem in that regard, as increasing inequality across society as a whole also plays a part. In 1991, the richest 1 per cent. of people owned 17 per cent. of the nation's wealth, but that proportion had risen to 23 per cent. by 2002. The gap is getting wider.
	There has been a huge amount of research internationally into equal and unequal societies. We know that the more unequal a society, the more unhappy it is. We also know that unequal societies have more of almost every social problem, from a greater incidence of teenage pregnancies to higher murder rates, and that the standard of health across the community is less good. As was noted earlier, inequality also generates high levels of what could be called social jealousy or frustration.
	In more equal societies, people have more chance to thrive because of their intellect, with their parents' backgrounds being less important in that regard. However, there is a clear link between inequality and social mobility: in all countries, children born of more educated parents are more literate than those from uneducated homes—that is common sense—but the gap between children with uneducated parents and those with educated parents is much smaller in more equal countries than it is in unequal countries such as the UK. In other words, in more equal countries, the built-in disadvantage for children from uneducated, illiterate households is much smaller.
	It is to be expected that in all countries there will some differential, based on parental background, in the proportion of young people who go to university and progress into the professions, but the gap in the UK is much wider than could normally be explained by reference to genes, upbringing and so on. All the evidence shows that bright children from disadvantaged areas are being let down by the systems that we have at the moment. In school, they are overtaken at a very early stage by their less bright but wealthier counterparts. They are less likely to go into higher or further education, and they are far less likely to enter a profession. The changes made to education over the years have not made enough of a difference.
	I have five, quick suggestions about what would make a difference. The first concerns early-years education, which I have already mentioned. We need much wider availability of really high-quality early-years education that not only enables parents to work, to get trained or to pursue further education, but helps children to develop, and helps to even out some of the disadvantages that they might face right at the start of life. Secondly, we need to look at the housing mix so that we can inject more opportunity and aspiration into deprived areas and break up the deprivation cycle that is pulling people down.
	Thirdly, Liberal Democrat policy is to introduce a pupil premium, which would mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds had more money attached to them. It would follow them into whatever school they went to, which would mean that the finances were in the school to help provide additional support that might be needed. That would make such a child much more financially attractive to a school. If a school gets more money for taking such a child, it would be an incentive for it to do so. That policy might help to ensure a broader mix of backgrounds among young people in schools.
	Fourthly, we need to reduce the financial barriers to higher and further education. That does not just mean looking at internships and so on; it also means considering tuition fees and the cost of going to university. For some young people, that hurdle is just too high.
	The final issue is non-graduate routes into professions. I am sure that other people will talk about that, too. As has already been said this afternoon, that is not just an issue for the individuals concerned, although it is a criminal waste of human potential in a lot of cases. As a country, we need the best people to be in the top roles. We need the best people as our top soldiers, Cabinet Ministers, doctors and lawyers. If we do not make sure that those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds who show potential are able to get into those jobs, we are all missing out.
	I really look forward to seeing the report that the right hon. Member for Darlington is to bring forward. Today, he mentioned a lot of practical suggestions; I hope that we will all be able to pull together behind them, because the issue is not party political. It is a matter in which we all, as citizens of the UK, have a huge stake. Fortunately, it is right at the top of the political agenda of all three parties, and I hope that we can see progress over the next 12 months.

Charles Walker: This is a truly uplifting debate. I was wondering what I would do in Parliament today, and I looked at the Order Paper and noticed that the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was going to speak. He gave one of the best speeches I have heard in this place in the four years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. It is a great privilege to take part in this debate.
	Our routes of travel may be different, but most Members of Parliament want to get this country to the same destination. I did not go into politics as a prosperous, middle-class man to ensure that other people did not enjoy my advantages. I went into politics to make sure that as many people as possible could have and enjoy the advantages that I had and continue to have. I represent a Hertfordshire seat, but Hertfordshire is not simply the sunlit leafy uplands of the home counties; there are many poor parts of Hertfordshire, albeit perhaps not as many as in London. However, there are deprived parts of the county.
	When I visit the schools, particularly the primary schools, in the difficult areas, it is wonderful to see all the shiny, smiley faces of the young people—the four, five, six and seven-year-olds—who are busily learning, creating, and absorbing the information around them. They are served by dedicated, hard-working teachers, but the real sadness is that when I talk to the teachers, I find that they can already identify the young people in their care who will struggle to make a success of their lives. All that goodness and all those smiles, yet not all those young children will go on to achieve great things, although the potential is there when they are young. We politicians in this place need to make sure that we allow that potential to blossom and flower.
	I had the advantage of an extremely good education. I was lucky: my parents could afford to send me to a good school, and of course I did moderately well in my exams. I am concerned, however, about the gap between youngsters who go to Eton and the best public schools in this country, and youngsters who go to difficult comprehensives, where getting an education is difficult, not because they do not want it but because the circumstances in which it is offered are difficult, with less motivated classmates and parents. For years I thought that it would be wrong in every way to discriminate against children who went to Eton; I thought that someone who got four A*s at Eton should be guaranteed a place at Oxford, Cambridge or one of the other great universities of this country. But at last I am beginning to realise that perhaps three Bs from an inner-city comprehensive may be worth more than three or four A*s from Eton. It may not always be the case, but such a child may well have more potential to go on and achieve true greatness than the child who is spoon-fed at one of our great public schools.
	I do not mean any disrespect to our public schools, but I was travelling out to France and, finding myself sitting next to two wonderful young men who were teachers at Eton, I said, "What's it like teaching these young people?" They replied, "It's easy: they're self-motivating; they're programmed to achieve; they compete with each other; there's no view in their mind that they will fail; they're an absolute joy to teach." Those two young men were truly charming, and I wish them every success in the world.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and is referring to a philosophy in which I have always believed. In fact, Harvard university—the alma mater both of the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), and of myself—makes huge attempts in its admissions process to look not just at the kids who go to the private schools in New York or Boston. Its whole admissions policy is geared to looking at kids from Watts or Harlem to see how they have performed relative to their peer group, not to kids from private schools. Harvard takes them in with the view that, through its "greenhouse effect", they can then go on to achieve greatness. That does not always work, but we should think about bringing that philosophy to our higher education institutions a little more.

Charles Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I totally agree with that philosophy. I should like to see more of it in this country.
	We cannot socially engineer a perfect solution; it is not within our gift in this place today. However, collectively—we can have robust and passionate disagreement, but we can also come together for this purpose—we can have the very highest aspirations for the young people of this country.
	I realise that we politicians are not in good odour, but I am so lucky, because in my constituency there is a wonderful young lady aged 16 who wrote to all the main political parties saying, "I'm interested in politics; I'd like to get involved," and, thank God, we were the first party to get back in touch with her. She is a truly remarkable young woman and she comes from a loving home. I do not call it a disadvantaged home; she just comes from a home where she has had fewer advantages than I had. She is a carer to members of her family, but despite that, was also Hertfordshire's volunteer of the year two years ago. She is the No. 1 academic performer in her school, a truly wonderful person who will go on to be twice if not three times the person I am. That is just fabulous. I want more people who have not had the advantages that Charles Walker has had to go on to be twice, three times and four times the person I am, and I want many of those people to live in my constituency.
	As I said a few moments ago, this is a truly uplifting debate. It may not be well attended, but I think that the people in the Public Gallery have walked in on something very special, and it has been a real honour to take part.

Brooks Newmark: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), I was not expecting to speak in this debate, but its title captured my imagination. My mother was from the south Bronx and left school in her early teens to make ties. My father was from Newark, New Jersey, and the only job he could get was breaking up the ground prior to the construction of the runway at Newark airport. Unfortunately, he died at an early age. My mother came over here and married an Englishman. I then had great opportunities that I might not have had in my previous life. Today, here I am—the hon. Member for Braintree. Social mobility has worked to my advantage, and this debate is important. I want to focus on some of the issues that have arisen in the 11 years or so since the Government came to power.
	In 1997 social mobility was heralded as part of the ideological bedrock of the Government. Tony Blair himself said:
	"If we are in politics for one thing, it is to make sure that all children are given the best chance in life."
	All of us, on both sides of the House, believe that. The current Prime Minister echoes the sentiment, promising us a social mobility "crusade".
	However, the rhetoric and promises of the Government have, unfortunately, run aground on the rocks of reality. Between 1998 and 2006 the number of families living in severe poverty increased by 400,000. Furthermore, child poverty, after housing costs, rose by 100,000 between 2006-07 and 2007-08. As the full effects of the recession continue to unfurl, I expect that the situation for those already in poverty, or those teetering on the brink, will deteriorate further.
	Social mobility has stalled; the class divide remains. Thousands of children are being deprived of the opportunity of a better life. The Government have claimed to be the champion of social mobility, but they have fundamentally failed to understand the problem. We do not make people's lives better by telling them that they have a legal right to a better life, by papering over the cracks or by addressing the symptoms and not the causes. The Government need to understand that the only way to give people a better chance in life is to tackle the root causes of the problem and build pathways of opportunity out of the cycle of deprivation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on the work that he has done on the issue through the Centre for Social Justice, which he founded.
	Too many children are born with wholly unequal life chances. The best possible start in life comes with a stable family life and a stable income. As a start, abolishing the couple penalty in the tax credit system would certainly help. Child poverty is a serious impediment to social mobility. The Government have set a commendable target to halve it by 2010, but their track record suggests that they are unlikely to achieve that goal. They have already missed their 2005 target to reduce child poverty by a quarter from 1998-99 levels. Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that, on the basis of their current policies, the Government will miss their 2010 target as well. I say that with regret.
	The inequalities that persist throughout the education system begin even before a child first enters the classroom. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on his work on the panel on fair access to the professions. However, notwithstanding the points that he made earlier, in 2007 the Sutton Trust, founded by my friend Peter Lampl, said that despite 10 years of a Labour Government the best schools remained socially selective—hardly a glowing epitaph for a Government claiming to be the champion of social mobility.
	The Conservative policy of making money available for children from the poorest backgrounds through a pupil premium and of ensuring that extra funds follow those pupils to the school that educates them, would mean that wherever they go to school, disadvantaged children would have the extra support that they need. We also need to target deprived schools, which can become ghettos of disillusionment for many who have untapped talents to succeed in life—a point admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). More money in deprived schools would pay for higher-quality teaching and ensure that help is targeted to where it is needed most. The Sutton Trust has found that the association between adults' education and that of their children is stronger in Britain than in other developed nations. A decent and equitable standard of education can set a child on the right path towards a profession and give not only them, but future generations, a chance to escape the debilitating cycle of deprivation. The upward trajectory of social mobility begins, first and foremost, with education. Young people's time at school and at home helps to shape their aspirations.
	Worryingly, the panel on fair access to the professions found that professionals typically grew up in families with incomes well above that of the average family, and that only one in five young people from an average income background and one in eight from a poorer background aspire to be professionals. Young people are not being given the support and advice to direct them along the education and talent development pathways that could lead them to a better life. Already, seven in 10 young people are unhappy with the careers support they receive. We must tap this reservoir of potential in young people from lower-income homes—not just for their own sake, but for the sake of the country's future. By 2020, there are expected to be 90 per cent. fewer unskilled jobs and 50 per cent. more professional jobs in Britain. This is an enormous opportunity finally to make some real progress on social mobility, and the Government should have seized on it long ago.
	I would suggest that the Government reflect on some of our proposals if they are not to miss this golden opportunity. A massive expansion in the provision of real apprenticeships at A-level standard could create 100,000 additional training places annually, and a new all-ages careers service and a professional careers adviser in every secondary school and college would help to tap the potential out there. We have also pledged to invest £20 million by the third year of a Conservative Government to provide more than 1,000 bursaries for new university places every year. That would extend to part-time study, and could be decided on in conjunction with employers. However, it is important to remember that social inequalities can persist and continue to inhibit social mobility right through higher education and beyond. When seven in 10 of the top graduate recruiters target only 20 of our country's universities, we can see this as a systemic problem.
	We must realise that it is never too late for social mobility, but we must also be able to accept when policies simply are not working. The new deal, one of this Government's flagship policies, has failed to get people back into work and failed to improve people's life chances. For example, in 2008 just 29 per cent. of new deal participants had gone on into employment. For all its hype, the new deal is more of a revolving door back to benefits than a fast track to social mobility; last year, two in every five participants returned immediately back to benefits. That cannot be good. Fully one third of the participants in the new deal for young people have been on the programme at least once before, and 50,000 new deal participants have been on it four or more times. For them, the new deal offers a constant way of life rather than a stepping stone to improve their opportunities.
	Welfare requires radical reform if it is to begin to be a tool of personal progress and advancement rather than a constant crutch. Every claimant able to work should be engaged in full-time activity as part of their back-to-work process, including mandatory community work for the long-term unemployed. We also need much tougher sanctions for those not willing to return to work. Private providers of welfare-to-work services should have the freedom to innovate and think outside the box, and be paid by the results they achieve.
	It seems that the Prime Minister, who describes himself as
	"a child of the first great wave of post-war social mobility",
	has forgotten where he came from. Under his Government, social mobility has stalled. Today we have a culture in which poverty of hope and poverty of aspiration still prevail. No child should be held back by their background. We need as a matter of urgency both education reform and welfare reform, to ensure that we bring about the necessary change in our society so that every child and teenager can aspire to, and achieve, their life's dreams.

John Hayes: I am delighted to take part in this debate on this important subject. Like the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), I am a beneficiary of the social mobility available to those born in 1958. I am delighted to participate, even though it means missing my youngest son Edward's fifth birthday party. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall wish Edward a happy birthday on behalf of you and the whole House.
	Education changes life chances, because the skills and knowledge that people acquire through learning give them the chance to prosper. More eloquently, one of my heroes, John Ruskin, said:
	"Education is the leading of human souls to what is best, and making what is best out of them".
	Even before the recession began to bite, we were failing to help too many people do their best and be the best that they could be.
	We should go further than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is not enough to redistribute opportunity; we must redistribute advantage. The uncomfortable truth is that we have not done enough to expand access to the professions, partly because we have not done enough to extend access to higher education. Opportunity for some has not led to opportunity for all. The reason why I described the expansion of the education sector as having cemented social division is that our failure to expand opportunities for those from under-represented groups, who do not typically tend to get to university, coupled with graduate recruitment into the professions, has meant that the less advantaged, cut adrift, see opportunity drifting away from them.
	In 2005, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) pointed out, the Sutton Trust pointed out that people born in 1970 were less likely to have moved between social classes than those born in the mutual year of birth of the right hon. Member for Darlington and myself, 1958. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the problem has been exacerbated rather than countered by public policy assumptions—over the lifetime of more than one Government.
	In the space of 12 years, a child born into poverty has become less likely, not more, to escape the consequences of their birth. Behind that change has been a rise in educational inequality. Young people from the poorest income groups increased their graduation rate by just 3 percentage points between 1981 and the late 1990s, compared with a rise of some 26 per cent. for those from the richest 20 per cent. of families. The clear conclusion reached by the authors of the Sutton Trust's report was that
	"the expansion of higher education in the UK has benefited those from richer backgrounds far more than poorer young people."
	It is still more dispiriting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) noted, that a raft of Government measures and a deluge of spin seem not to have made much difference, as a recent Cabinet Office report was forced to conclude. As has already been quoted, it stated:
	"Broadly, social mobility is no greater or less since 1970".
	The latest statistics, released just last week, showed that the number of undergraduates from lower social and economic groups was actually falling. If we failed to expand opportunities when the economy was booming, how can we possibly do so when 100,000 people every month are losing their jobs?
	I am not an adherent of laissez-faire. Indeed, as many hon. Members know, I am not a liberal of any kind. I believe that Governments can and do make a positive difference, and, like the right hon. Member for Darlington, I believe that they have a responsibility to do just that.
	Governments can influence people's lives; they can change people's lives for the better by laying the foundations for a stronger, broader-based economy and social order, in which people can move more straightforwardly. To do that, we must give people the opportunity to study, to acquire skills and improve their chances to change their lives. Critically, we must give them the wherewithal to do that; wherewithal, not lack of ambition, is the problem. Although the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property and I agree about much, I think that we probably disagree about that, in nuance if not in substance. I am being as generous as I can, but I shall doubtless hear more about that when he sums up. The critical point about wherewithal is providing the right sort of quality advice and guidance, a subject to which I shall revert shortly and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant spoke so eloquently.
	However, we must also rethink our perception of study. Instead of forcing people to fit the education system, we must make the education and training system fit people's lives. We will not broaden access to higher education as long as we think that the full-time, three-year university degree is the only or the best way in which to study. Woody Allen—you did not expect to hear from him today, Madam Deputy Speaker—once said that
	"80 per cent. of success is showing up".
	However, people need to know where to show up. Wherewithal, not aspiration, is lacking. There are high ambitions, but low expectations. People aspire to much because they know that more skilling, training and education is likely to help them prosper, but they do not expect to achieve that because they know too that most of their fellows do not.
	It is important to provide people with the information they need to decide when, where and how to fulfil their ambitions. We should deliver higher education at a place, time and pace that meets people's needs. We should recognise that increasing participation does not apply only to 18 to 30-year-olds but the whole of our society.
	Recent Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills research on social mobility—I am not sure whether it is rather vulgar now to mention DIUS, but I will anyway—suggests that there is
	"strong evidence of significant returns to degree-level qualifications gained in later life."
	Yet the number of first-time mature entrants to HE from all social classes is falling. Lifelong learning provision in higher education is being decimated by the Government's misguided decision to cut funding for equivalent level qualifications.
	Last month, a report warned that adult education in HE is
	"on the verge of extinction",
	with the universities of Bath, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Bristol, Durham, Exeter, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Newcastle, Southampton and Surrey all scaling back or shutting their lifelong learning departments. As hon. Members know—I say "Members", and as I look around, I see the press release emanating from my office: "Hayes galvanises packed House!"—the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has pointed out repeatedly that approximately 1.3 million adult learning places have been lost. Yet people often find their way back to learning through non-accredited study, for example, women returners, people without a previous successful history of learning, mature learners and disadvantaged learners, such as people with special needs and disabled learners, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned at the beginning of the debate.
	Lifelong learning provision, the loss of which I lament, is critical because it directly affects people such as those not in education, employment or training. We discussed NEETs at the beginning of the debate, but they got scant mention subsequently. However, there is a lot to discuss, so I understand that. All the evidence suggests that young people not in education, employment or training are more likely to find their way back into all of them by taking small steps on the road to learning. Yet the lack of availability of adult community learning means that they cannot take that first step back into education.
	To broaden access we need to challenge prejudices about higher education. The rhythms and structures of campus culture are often simply unsuitable for the needs of the under-represented. The ingrained pattern of low participation in some neighbourhoods and among certain social groups requires solutions sympathetic to the lives of different types of learners. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) mentioned child care in that context, and I agree with her. Full-time study is difficult for those who work or have families. The financial burden of living away from home is heavy for those from low-income groups.
	We must recognise that different lifestyles necessitate different learning experiences, with more emphasis on part-time courses, community-based learning and modular and distance learning. Through changed modes of learning, we can change the life chances of thousands of potential students. We can and must build bridges between aspiration and HE admissions, achievement and social mobility. As community institutions, further education colleges have a vital role to play in building those bridges, but at present, there are too many barriers to education of all types and at all levels.
	Twelve years ago, the late Lord Dearing concluded in his review that much greater flexibility in HE provision was vital to widening participation. His review found that
	"a major limitation of the UK system of higher education is that students are offered just one contest—they must clear the 'high jump' of the three/four year honours degree, or fail".
	Yet the system has not become flexible in the way that Dearing envisioned. If an American leaves university before finishing a full degree, they will describe themselves as having studied one, two or three years at college, implying that they will return to complete their studies later. If someone leaves university or college early in the UK, they are branded a drop-out. There could not be a greater difference between taking a break and dropping out. However, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation confirms that most working-class students who leave college or university early gain skills, confidence and life experience from their time there and, most interestingly of all, that the majority re-enter higher education later.
	Dearing's vision of a transferable credit-based framework has yet to be properly realised, however. He recommended that
	"a major part of future expansion should be at sub-degree level...provided in both higher and further education institutions."
	FE colleges are uniquely placed to serve those whose lives do not fit traditional forms of university learning, because those colleges are characterised by localness, accessibility and flexibility. Their proximity to non-traditional students' homes, workplaces and previous learning experiences enables them to have an easy reach to the under-represented. However, enrolments for HE and FE have declined and are below their 2001-02 level.
	Colleges are often prevented from responding to the communities that they serve because of the byzantine bureaucracy that they face—recognised some years ago, in a report commissioned by the Government and written by Andrew Foster. He said that the
	"galaxy of oversight, inspection and accreditation bodies"
	was diverting staff, managers and teachers from their proper purpose. Rather than reducing the bureaucracy in further education, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which has wended its way through this House and is currently being debated in the other place, adds to it. The Bill, which has been described as "obscure", "opaque" and "obtuse", creates three new bodies with a role in further education. For all its faults, the Learning and Skills Council was a bit like the red army: expensive and big, but at least it was predictable. The new bodies are more Byzantium.
	Another recent report by DIUS found that
	"the UK is not doing enough to provide a more or less complete online educational experience to students who, for a variety of reasons...cannot enjoy a conventional campus based learning experience."
	As a nation, we surely cannot afford to fall behind in e-learning or other forms of distance learning. I commend the work of the Open university, which has led the way in that area, and where I was speaking just this morning.
	Opportunity is not enough, however. I repeat that the wherewithal is critical as well. Too often, young people in particular do not get the advice and guidance that they need to turn their ambitions into reality. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families made that clear in a brief intervention, and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the right hon. Member for Darlington also highlighted the point.
	By abolishing the careers service for young people and replacing it with Connexions, which provides support also on issues ranging from housing to drugs and sexual health, the Government have undermined the professionalism of careers advisers. In two thirds of schools in England, careers advice is given by staff without any formal qualifications in the subject. Two years ago, a House of Lords report concluded that young people were not being given the information that they needed to access apprenticeships. A recent study found that 31 per cent. of young people felt that they were not getting enough information about going to university. We heard today from the right hon. Member for Darlington that 70 per cent. of young people in a particular survey said that they had had no careers advice at all. I can add to that: 94 per cent. said that they needed better subject and careers information and support.
	This is why we are so fervently in favour of, a dedicated, impartial, all-age careers and guidance service. Such a service should have a presence in every school and college, as well as on the high street. Everyone should have access to universally recognised, community-based, impartial advice and guidance about education and career options. This applies not only to young people. As an advanced economy, we have a continuing need to re-skill and up-skill in this recession, and advice for mature learners is also vital.
	Education is the key to unlocking individual potential, increasing employability, and building fuller lives for individuals, which in turn helps us to construct a society that works. Each of us must play our part, and feel proud because we are valued in a society that is socially mobile, cohesive and just. As a country, we led the world into the industrial revolution. We also led the world in the growth of the service sector. I believe that we can now lead the world into a new economy, a 21st century economy in which the professions will become ever more important and ever more representative, because people can find their way in those professions, no matter where they started from.
	It has been said by speakers across the Chamber today that our economy will need people with high-level skills and the aptitude and ability to adapt quickly to different roles and new challenges. We need an education system that is flexible enough to respond to these new demands. Instead of becoming ever more prescriptive, instructing and dictating, we must look and learn from the best, trust those with a good track record and evangelise to the rest. Instead of telling potential students that they must study in a particular way at a particular place and at a particular time, we should be opening up provision and valuing different forms of lifelong learning. Instead of strangling further education with ever more red tape, we should dismantle the bureaucracy and trust colleges to manage their own affairs. And we should trust learners to make their own decisions, supported by the kind of dedicated professional advice and guidance that I have recommended.
	All with stout hearts and sharp minds should have their chance of glittering prizes, should they not? Learning drives social mobility, and the inequalities implicit in a free society can be ethically legitimised only in a social order that allows people to prosper, no matter where they began.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) said that this was an important debate on a vital subject. Like him, I am pleased, proud and privileged to take part in such a debate. Surely we want to create a society for which each plays their part, and of which all can feel proud, a nation in which disadvantage is fought and advantage is spread—a Britain that stands tall when it is socially cohesive because it is socially mobile and socially just because it is both of them. To instil Britons with confidence, politicians must be confident enough to be bold. We need nothing less; and nothing less than that is right.

David Lammy: This has been a tough few weeks for the House of Commons, but I think it right to say that this debate has seen the House at its very best. There are, of course, some political differences about the "how" aspects of much of what has been said, but the passion and eloquence with which Members have made their case and shared their desire for social mobility and greater access to the professions has been palpable. I am deeply honoured as a member of the Government to have witnessed this occasion.
	It is right to say that many hon. Members have a professional background. Much is often said about barristers and lawyers more generally. Since Labour came to power in 1997, however, the barristers have been outnumbered by the large number of teachers and lecturers on the Labour Benches. It is also right to say that our numbers include doctors, architects and former senior members of the armed services. Although the Chamber has not been packed this afternoon, I know that many hon. Members will either have been watching the debate in their offices or will read  Hansard tomorrow and will agree with much of what has been said.
	It is my deep pleasure to pay tribute my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who is my very good friend. Back in 2002, it was a great honour when I received a call from the No. 10 switchboard and the operator asked me whether I would hold for the Prime Minister. I held—I have never met anyone who has said that they would not hold for the Prime Minister—and Tony Blair asked me to join the Government. I was very pleased to be made a junior Minister in the Department of Health, which was then led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington.
	Many in the House will know that my right hon. Friend and I share similar backgrounds. He was raised by a single mother on a council estate in county Durham, just as I was raised by a single mother in Tottenham. In a sense we have always shared a concern for social mobility. He has had much to say about whether the opportunities he had then exist to the same extent today.
	I am obviously not part of the 1958 generation; I am part of the 1970 generation. I experienced my secondary schooling in the 1980s and university in the early '90s. In that sense, I suspect I share much with the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), who is younger than me and who certainly— [Interruption.] If I am not careful, I am going to get into trouble saying any more, but she looks very young indeed!
	As regards the evidence that the panel brought to bear on the cohort of young people coming through from the 1970s, I suppose I had reason to reflect on being the exception rather than the rule. I was raised, as I said, in inner-city Tottenham—part of the country that experienced serious social unrest in a period of its history, arising from real problems experienced by its black and ethnic minority community—and I am acutely aware of the community out of which I became a Minister.
	Some of that was due to luck—the networks and the social concern that gathered around me, and the youth workers, teachers, priests and others. Internships can provide jobs in the Easter and summer holidays, and can give people their big break. I was fortunate enough—in a sense—to be able to leave Tottenham and to be educated in Peterborough.
	I commend my right hon. Friend on a particular dimension of his work. He has not just examined socio-economic disadvantage—the disadvantage that still exists for women and people with disabilities, especially those from poorer backgrounds. He has also been keen to examine geography. We forget how many professions are centred largely on our major cities, particularly the city of London. That is certainly true of my profession, the Bar, but many of our senior doctors and architects are also part of what has historically been a metropolitan elite. Those who grow up in suburban Peterborough, Swindon or Basingstoke, or much further afield—further north, perhaps, in towns such as Middlesbrough—will find it extremely difficult to gain access to the networks that I have described. I look forward to learning from my right hon. Friend's report how such opportunities can be provided, but I know that internships are part of the answer.
	Both the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central pointed out that university was a key element of the necessary journey. Although I wish that the progress that we have made over the past 10 years had been even greater—I think that all hon. Members share that wish—I hope that Opposition Members in particular agree that the Aimhigher programme has made an important difference. This week we are celebrating the work of Aimhigher co-ordinators and associates.
	"Westminster Constituency Profiles", which is available from the House of Commons Library, shows that huge progress has been made in nearly every constituency in terms of the participation rates among young people at universities, and that real progress has been made in those among young people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. For instance, in the south London constituency of the Leader of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), 525 teenagers went to university last year, compared with 185 in 1997. That is an increase of 184 per cent. In Dagenham, a part of London about which many of us express concern—especially following last week's elections, when progress was made by the British National party—340 youngsters went to university last year, compared with just 125 in 1997. That is an increase of 172 per cent. That is down to the work of schools connecting to universities. Over the past four or five years, we have learned what works. We know that summer schools work and that universities, with buildings that are available for so much of the summer, can make a considerable difference.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central mentioned the important role of parents, and their intervention is also important. Manchester Metropolitan and Liverpool universities are extending their work not just with young people in the schools around them, but with their families and parents to lift those aspirations. In cities such as Sheffield or Liverpool, people have seen the university as that place on the hill—an ivory tower; a place that is "not for me". I commend the work of Aimhigher Associates, a recent programme involving young people going back into schools to champion universities and, importantly, to help much younger people in primary school and early secondary understand the process. That goes back to the point about information, careers and guidance. There is a need to understand the UCAS process.
	I was told by the vice-chancellor of Bristol university that many courses are less competitive, and that schoolchildren from independent schools understand that and know to apply for courses that need slightly lower grades. However, that knowledge was not present in the state sector. It is now coming in because the associates—those young people who applied a few years ago—have conveyed it to young people.
	We need to extend the work and recognise that there are parts of the country where university is a long way away. We must spread networks, which is what we have done through the National Council for Educational Excellence and the work of Professor Steve Smith, the vice-chancellor of Exeter university, who was able to show that every university now has a policy programme on widening participation. The vast majority of universities are offering summer schools and all are working with schools in their local neighbourhoods. There is much more to do, but the programme is in place and the evidence base is there.
	With regard to the panel, it is my real hope that we will be able not just to have a conversation about what Government, universities and schools can do but about what the Government, with our expertise, can do in greater partnership with the professions. All of us will recognise that it can frustrating when a particular profession—one has been mentioned several times today—is way behind others because best practice has not filtered through. Part of the panel's work will help us to move to a benchmark of standards for professions learning from one another so that we can make the advance that is needed.
	The debate is hugely important for our wider economy—although it is, of course, taking place at a difficult time for the economy. There has been, and will continue to be, a substantial rise in the number of professional and managerial positions in the UK—from one in 13 at the turn of the century to one in three now, and with the prospect of still further progress over the next decade to 2020. Some studies suggest that up to 7 million new professionals will be needed by 2020, and that does not even take into account some of the new professions. The digital economy will be important to our future. We also know that our future has to be sustainable, and the renewables debate is particularly important in that regard. Technology and engineering are central to our economic future as well, as are the life sciences. All those emerging sectors will provide new professions that we will want to ensure all our young people are able to access.
	The labour market's requirement for ever higher skills and knowledge will place new pressures on teachers not only in schools, but in further and higher education. We also must not forget that the average age in this country is rising, so there will be retirements to consider, and we must ensure that people of a broad age range can access the jobs. There is, therefore, an economic case for the huge importance of this subject, and there is also a social justice case, which was eloquently put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington.
	I hope that it is not controversial to suggest that the history of this country has largely been an elitist one. In the 19th and much of the 20th centuries we could get away with that because of our manufacturing economic base. Few people went to university, and skilled jobs were available in manufacturing and in industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining, and also in agriculture, with its heritage of the market towns that there still are in some Members' constituencies. That will not be the right prescription going forward, however. We cannot be content with such a situation. We must recognise that talent exists in all places and ensure that everyone has these opportunities, and the politics and public policy to support that must also be put in place.
	The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) was right to point to Harvard's ability to access young people from the very poorest parts of America. I recall that when I was at Harvard it was the most diverse institution I had studied at other than my primary school in Tottenham, and there must be more that we can do in that regard. There are complications in this picture, however. It is probably right to say that in America the discourse around African-American disadvantage in particular has resulted in an advance in institutions such as Harvard, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are significant issues in respect of "the white working-class American", who is, perhaps, not as greatly represented in institutions such as Harvard. This points to a wider debate that goes back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made about the data on socio-economic disadvantage, and I look forward to learning what his report has to say about that.
	Hon. Members have also had much to say about information, advice and guidance—that has been the common theme of most contributions. I am pleased that I have been able to work with colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families and that it will shortly publish a new strategy on careers advice for schools. The picture there is complex; it is right to say that the straight comparison between state schools and independent schools is slightly unfair. The cohort and the backgrounds of children who go to independent schools mean that one pays one's money and the return is university. The cohort and the backgrounds of young people in state schools are more complex. The challenges, and defining what success is for teachers, particularly in state schools, make that picture and the job of providing information, advice and guidance much more complex. For that reason we introduced the Connexions service, which has been particularly helpful for the most vulnerable young people in its ability to connect up information about not only careers, but sexual health, drug addiction and other things. We must take a hard look at how to move forward on information, advice and guidance as we progress to this new landscape where local authorities are in the driving seat.
	A number of issues are emerging from the work that my Department was doing with the DCSF. We recognised that teacher attitude is important and that many teachers have not experienced our most competitive universities. A few weeks ago, I asked people from Oxford university to come to my constituency to meet head teachers and principals of the local college and the local education authority. I did so because we are still yet to send a young person from a Tottenham school to Oxford. The teachers were asking what an Oxford pupil looks like and what the standard was, because more information on that needs to be available if our teachers are to help. The discussion has been very meaningful and a work programme has been put together, but it illustrates that teacher attitude and access to better information will be very important.
	It is also important to recognise that many schools—often those in the most deprived areas—are schools for those aged 10 to 16. In a sense, it is understandable that, as we have been driving up standards to the extent where 46 per cent. of young people get five good GCSEs including English and Maths, the emphasis has been on standards. We need to ensure that the progression routes beyond GCSE and A-level, particularly those into the labour market and higher education, are better understood.
	This new strategy is not just about schools; it is also about further education, and information, advice and guidance, particularly that provided between higher education and further education. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and I have had much to say over the years about advice on apprenticeships, and I hope that the Bill that passed through this House last year will mean that that will get better, but in FE issues have been raised about the advice to all of our universities.

David Willetts: I am sure that the Minister has looked at the evidence—I believe that the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) referred to this—from the Futuretrack report on applying for higher education, which presented findings from a survey of the class of 2006. It shows shocking ignorance about the options; a lot of people said that they wished that they had had access to advice. What people particularly want—this is what hon. Members on both sides of the House were calling for—is professional careers advice from a distinctive careers service. For whatever reason, that is what has been lost from view with the creation of Connexions. I wonder whether the Minister could say something to recognise the case made by those on both sides of the House today in support of that initiative: the provision of independent careers advice that cuts across ages and would cover schools, FE and wider matters. I hope that we might hear more from him on that crucial initiative.

David Lammy: I recognise the description that the hon. Gentleman gives. However, I shall not anticipate the report that will be published shortly by my colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, who will address these issues in their strategy. Nor do I wish to anticipate the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, who would have something to say about that. I recognise the issue, and as the Minister with responsibility for higher education, I might be expected to be very keen to ensure that young people understand the opportunities that exist.
	Much has also been said about internships. These are critical and important, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was keen when Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to ensure in this difficult time that the Government do all that they can to galvanise the country to offer more internships to young people as they graduate this summer and into the autumn. I am pleased that we have seen firms such as Network Rail, Channel Four, Abbey and Microsoft and the police and others indicating that they will offer internships for young people.
	Many organisations have described their internships as what some of us might call work placements—opportunities within a degree course. Our aim has been to galvanise that attention to life after graduation. Employers are coming on board, and the hon. Member for Havant is right to say that we are offering the graduate talent pool website. We have put money behind that and the Government's role is to co-ordinate and galvanise it. Our efforts must last not just through September but into next year and beyond as different employers seek to offer opportunities for young people that will last for different periods. Whether for three months or six months, young people will have the opportunity to obtain the skills that will put them in a stronger position to gain permanent employment.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central mentioned apprenticeships in this place, and it is important to provide opportunities for those who live way outside London. That is why I was in Manchester last week, ensuring that we see a flowering of internships in that city, so that they are available to young people in the north-west.
	Much has also been said, especially by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, about informal adult learning. We have had that discussion many times in this place, and I hope that he will recognise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen in the recent White Paper, "The Learning Revolution", which was published only in March, and the new fund of £20 million to help to garner cross-sector projects in that area. There is also an existing £210 million budget, so people should not get the impression that no learning for learning's sake is happening across the country. Of course it is, and it is funded not only by my Department, but by the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government fund lots of activities in many areas—in particular, they are aimed at achieving social cohesion—to keep the informal adult learning going.
	The work that was set up by the Prime Minister in January, which has been taken forward so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, is hugely important. It has been a great pleasure to hear the warmth with which the House has commended that work and with which it looks forward to my his report later in the summer. Of course, we will have differences about how to do such work. The Government, in particular, are concerned about any proposals for cuts that might lead to problems with apprentices and with routes beyond school. I hope that the hon. Member for Havant will make the case within the Opposition to ensure that the funding is there to increase social mobility.
	I am grateful to have taken part in this debate. I commend the work that has gone on and thank all the panel members and the civil servants in the Cabinet Office for all that they are doing. This work will make a huge difference for many young people and adults across this country. It is a tribute to the best that can come from the House of Commons and the metropolitan elite here in London.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of social mobility and fair access to the professions.

GILES CARLYLE-CLARKE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Ms Butler.)

Robert Walter: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise again in the House the case of my constituent, Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke. It will probably be helpful if I provide a little background to this case, which I think concerns a serious question of human rights. It is also no coincidence that most of the extradition cases that find themselves being discussed on the Floor of this House concern extradition to the United States.
	By way of background, I should tell the House that my constituent, Giles Carlyle-Clarke, was extradited to the United States in 2006. He has served a short prison sentence in the US and is now living back in the United Kingdom. It will be recalled that there was an Adjournment debate on the case in this House on 24 March 2005, which can be found at column 1095 in  Hansard. The then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is now unemployed—

Phil Woolas: She is working. She is still an MP.

Robert Walter: She is still an MP, of course. On that occasion, she was reluctant to respond and it is also true that she sought Mr. Speaker's assistance in trying to rule the debate out of order on the basis that it might be sub judice. Mr. Speaker supported my position and the debate went ahead, although the Minister was still reluctant to give answers to some of the questions that I raised. I know that she had reservations because she felt that she may have been operating in a quasi-judicial role. However, I believe that she was responsible to Parliament for the decisions that had been made, and that it was therefore appropriate that those decisions should be questioned here in the House.
	The subject of this debate is the process behind the extradition of my constituent Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke. He was wanted by the US Government in relation to four charges involving the smuggling of cannabis into the US, and the possession of cannabis there, between 1983 and 1988. The charges therefore related to events that took place more than 20 years ago.
	Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was extradited to the US in 2005, and I do not intend to deal with the case itself, but it is a matter of record that, in November 2006, in what I think is described as a plea bargain, Mr. Carlyle-Clarke pleaded guilty to charges of drug smuggling. In February 2007, he was sentenced to three years in prison. As I said earlier, he has now been released and is back in the UK.
	The case that I put to the Minister at the time of the earlier debate was simple, and it has not changed. To extradite an individual for alleged crimes that the authorities claim took place between 17 and 22 years previously is unjust and oppressive, when that individual has been living openly and not as a fugitive from justice. He and his family have lived at the same address for several hundred years, and he had given that address as his principal residence for at least the 26 years previous to the case being heard.
	As I said at the time of the previous debate, the decision is unprecedented, as it seems to ignore article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states that everyone is entitled to a
	"fair and public hearing within a reasonable time".
	The Americans had not given credible evidence that my constituent should be extradited. Their evidence was based on statements made by hardened criminals as part of their own plea-bargaining deals. In fact, Mr. Joel Cohen, a former US district attorney, said:
	"In my opinion, the methods employed by the Government of the US through their Agent Baker and others in obtaining these three affidavits were not only quite wrong, but rose to the level of egregious misconduct."
	He also said that the effect of the American authorities' actions had been
	"effectively to destroy the fairness of any trial that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke may face."
	However, evidence has come to light since my constituent's extradition to the US that shows that, at the very least, the US authorities misled the Home Office and, by extension, the judicial review conducted by Mr. Justice Pitchford in November 2004. Perhaps more worryingly, though, the British Government failed, either intentionally or unintentionally, to acknowledge that they knew that the American evidence was wrong.
	Prior to his extradition, Mr. Carlyle-Clarke had lived and travelled openly, and that included visiting the US in the period since the alleged crimes had taken place. Moreover, until his conviction, he had a clean criminal record.
	Central to the American authorities' case was their claim that they did not know where Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was until the end of the 1990s. At the time of the earlier debate, new evidence before the Minister proved that the American authorities had in fact known his identity since 1988, and that they had known of his whereabouts since 1989. In fact, he had served a sworn affidavit on the American authorities in 1989 in which he gave the address in Dorset in my constituency where he had continued to live. He now lives there again, and I have seen a copy of that document.
	The basis of the case that I made at the time was that Giles Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers had made a new submission to the Home Office based on dramatic new evidence that had recently emerged in the US. His lawyers believed that that new evidence meant that the Home Office had to reverse its decision to permit his extradition to the United States of America, as the Home Office decision made in 2004 was based on information that turned out to have been untrue.
	That new evidence revealed that the US authorities had, in fact, misled the Home Office. They claimed that they had no photographic means of identifying Giles Carlyle-Clarke until 1995. As he had claimed all along, and as was confirmed, the US authorities had a photo of him as long ago as May 1998. I have seen a copy of that photograph, which was acquired from the state's attorney in the US. Accordingly, I claimed in the 2005 debate that the US authorities' reason for delay in extraditing Giles Carlyle-Clarke lacked any credibility. I further asserted that there seemed to be no explanation for the US authorities' delay in applying for the extradition of Giles Carlyle-Clarke until 1998 for alleged crimes committed between 17 and 22 years previously when they knew of his identity in 1988 and knew his address in 1989.
	In their new submission to the Home Office, Giles Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers also requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, that the Home Office release in full its correspondence with the US authorities on the case. I had also written to a Minister to make the same request. In the 2005 debate, the then Under-Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley, responded:
	"The request is being considered under the freedom of information procedures, but questions to do with international relations require further analysis before we respond, which we are trying to do as quickly as possible. There is nothing sinister about that: it is simply a question of respecting legal confidences between states."—[ Official Report, 24 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 1100.]
	That is, it was a diplomatic nicety. In the light of the further evidence that has been revealed, I do not regard that as a satisfactory defence.
	I do not wish to dwell too long on the evidence that I highlighted in 2005, save to repeat that Mr. Jefferson Dean, a US lawyer who had been retained by Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, discovered that a photograph of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke had been in the US authorities' possession since 1988, not 1995 as they had previously asserted. In addition, as I have said, Giles Carlyle-Clarke signed a sworn affidavit that was served on the US authorities and gave his home address in 1989. The US authorities had therefore been able to identify Giles Carlyle-Clarke, and had known of his whereabouts, since 1988.
	During a period of over six years between 1998 and Mr Carlyle-Clarke's extradition in 2005, the legal process in this country required the then Home Secretary to consider the representations of both the US authorities and Mr. Carlyle-Clarke on the question of delay. However, the Home Secretary at the time persistently rejected Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's version of events. In November 2004, he was informed of the Home Secretary's decision to extradite him to the United States. Also in November 2004, Mr. Justice Pitchford held in the High Court that the Home Secretary was fully entitled to find, on the basis of the evidence before him, that the US authorities did not come into possession of the photograph until 1995 or thereafter, and that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's defence team was wrong to suggest that there was any evidence to the contrary.
	As Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers had not expected that interpretation of the evidence, they decided to instruct a US-based attorney, Mr. Jeffrey Dean, with a specific brief to find out what the truth was. During his investigation, Jeffrey Dean discovered the new evidence that I referred to at the time.
	It might be considered odd that a Member of Parliament should, after a constituent has served a prison term on drug-smuggling charges—charges to which he pleaded guilty—again bring the case to the attention of the House. I do so not only because the earlier evidence points to an unfair and inhumane extradition, but because more evidence, which was made available at the time of the trial by the US prosecuting authorities, shows that there was clear evidence that the Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Government had not only identified Giles Carlyle-Clarke, but were working together on the surveillance of his activities as early as 1987.
	I have a copy of a three-page United States Drug Enforcement Agency investigation report, dated 30 January 1987. That, along with several other relevant documents, were made available to Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's US lawyers in July 2006—after his extradition but before his trial. The document relates to a drug seizure off the coast of Mexico and refers to my constituency as "Giles", but, more importantly, it identifies him as the owner of two vessels, including Can Can, which was the vessel involved in the charges on which Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was convicted. The report gave the vessel's location as St. Petersburg, Florida, which is within the United States' jurisdiction, and also identified it as a British-registered vessel, although I think that the phrase used was "flying an English flag". The vessel was on the British Small Ships Register, and any inquirer would have had access to the owner's name and address.
	The second document, another DEA investigation report, dated 11 September 1990, is particularly relevant to the US and British Governments. By that date, both Giles Carlyle-Clarke and his yacht, The Can Can of Arne, to give it its full name, had acquired a DEA NADDIS file number. NADDIS stands for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System, and it is well known that Drug Enforcement Agency suspects have such file numbers. That September 1990 report clearly shows that HM Customs was working with the US Drug Enforcement Agency in the surveillance of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke and his yacht. Both agencies were clearly convinced that the vessel was being used for drug smuggling, and the British authorities suspected that it was being used to transport drugs to the United Kingdom. That document confirms not only that agencies of both Governments were watching Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, but the ownership of the vessel, which, although not specifically stated in the report, would have confirmed Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's home address, and that of his mother, who also at one stage owned the yacht.
	The key point, however, is that the final decision on the application by the United States Department of Justice for the extradition of Giles Carlyle-Clarke relied upon the submissions of the Alabama district attorney, David York, and the letter of his assistant, Gloria Bedwell, dated 25 February 2005. In it, she states quite categorically.
	"The truth is that we did not know who Clarke was or where he was until after Agent Baker got the information from the United Kingdom in 1995. Period."
	It is a rather gruff way to write a letter but, none the less, that is how it was put.
	I stated at the time of the previous debate that it was, to use a legal phrase, unjust and oppressive, by reason of the passage of time, for Giles Carlyle-Clarke to be extradited to the US. I understand, and I made this point at the time, from leading Queen's counsel who specialise in this area of the law that if the case related to an extradition between Commonwealth countries, it would be held to be unjust on the basis of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's inability to deal with events so distant in the past, and oppressive because he has lived a new and blameless life in the intervening period. The Home Secretary of the time and Mr. Justice Pitchford accepted that there had been what could be described as a questionable delay, but it is now clear that they both relied on the United States Department of Justice evidence to which I have just referred: evidence that the United States authorities could not identify or locate my constituent until 10 years after the event. For reasons that have never been made clear, the proceedings for his extradition and eventual trial took another seven years to conclude.
	That evidence—or lack of it—must now be described as both misleading and deficient. There is now indisputable evidence that the United States authorities knew all along who Giles Carlyle-Clarke was. They knew that he was the registered owner of the yacht involved in the offences; they had photographs of him dating from 1988 and a sworn affidavit that he had lodged in an associated case in 1989. All that evidence was available to the Home Secretary before his extradition. However, the Home Secretary chose to rely on the assistant district attorney's statement that the authorities did not know who Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was until 1995, although they still took until 1999 to seek his extradition.
	Documents are now available showing that the Drugs Enforcement Agency, the US Government agency responsible for collecting the evidence in drugs cases, had identified my constituent as early as 1987. Its representatives knew who he was. They knew the registration details of his yacht, and therefore his address and the location of his yacht—and therefore probably his whereabouts in September 1990. Not only that, but the British agency responsible for guarding our borders against such activity—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, as it was then known—also knew all that information, and was working with the United States authorities in pursuing my constituent and his then alleged drug smuggling activities.
	That all begs the question whether when the Home Office refused to respond to my and Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers' requests under the Freedom of Information Act, it was not protecting some diplomatically sensitive material. It begs the question whether the Home Office was concerned that it would be revealed that Her Majesty's Government knew that the statements given by US officials were untrue, that both Governments had full knowledge of Carlyle-Clarke's activities as early as 1987 and that they therefore could not substantiate the claim that the extradition had been delayed because of a lack of knowledge about his identity and whereabouts.
	I am not a lawyer, but I can tell when a citizen has been unfairly dealt with by Ministers and the courts. Although Mr. Carlyle-Clarke pleaded guilty to the original crimes and has served his sentence in prison, it still remains the case that the procedures surrounding his deportation could not be described as representative of justice. Those procedures were an affront to my constituent's human rights, and I believe that he is owed an apology by both Governments for an extradition that he believes was obtained by deception. I expect nothing less than that apology from the Minister this evening.

Phil Woolas: Congratulations are due to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) for raising this issue. As he said, he raised it in a previous debate on 24 March 2005, and I was aware of that as I prepared for this one. I can respond to the hon. Gentleman's speech through my knowledge of the background and through confirmation, where possible, of his account.
	However, I was not clear from his speech whether the letter to the Minister was a recent one or whether it was the letter written on the previous occasion. Similarly, I am not clear whether the freedom of information request that he referred to was recent or related back to the previous situation. Will the hon. Gentleman help me on that?

Robert Walter: I am very willing to help. None of the correspondence to which I referred relates to recent events; it all relates to matters that took place before the extradition.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification; I am sorry that I did not catch it properly at the start. Let me come back to that in a moment.
	I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, was extradited to the United States in July 2006 to face charges concerning the importation and possible distribution of marijuana. The charges involved the smuggling into the United States, in the years 1986 and 1987, of several thousand pounds in weight of marijuana. He was alleged to have co-ordinated the delivery and distribution of a further quantity of drugs in Alabama in 1988. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in agreement on those facts.
	I understand that following the extradition in 2006, the case was heard in 2007. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was legally represented at the proceedings in the United States and, as has been described, pleaded guilty to the charge put to him, and was sentenced in February 2007 to three years' imprisonment in the US. As was his right, he applied to be transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of the sentence in a prison here. He was transferred in July 2008, and released from UK custody in October 2008. I understand that he was on licence until May 2009; he is now no longer subject to any licence conditions.
	The extradition proceedings, which are what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, are of course long concluded, but I may be of assistance in giving the House a summary of those proceedings. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke fought extradition for several years, and the case was considered at all stages of the process. An arrest warrant was first granted against him by the district court in Alabama in 1992. Under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989, which was in operation at that time, he was provisionally arrested for extradition on 9 January 1998, and remanded on bail. On 4 January 1999, he was committed at Bow street magistrates court to await the Secretary of State's decision as to his return, a prima facie case having been found against him based on documentary evidence and witness statements. He then applied for habeas corpus, but withdrew from that line of legal challenge on 10 November 1999.
	Under the 1989 Act, the case then fell to the then Secretary of State, to decide whether to make an order for Mr Carlyle-Clarke's return. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was advised that he had the right to make representations by 2 December 1999 against that surrender. Under the procedures of the 1989 Act, in making such a decision as to surrender, the Secretary of State had to take into account not only statutory restrictions on return but, in the exercise of his discretion, any other reason why it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order return. The deadline for representations was subsequently extended, and they were received from Mr Carlyle-Clarke's solicitors on 13 December 1999 and on 1 February 2000. They covered a wide range of matters. Inquiries were then made of the US authorities, followed by a very careful consideration of the representations, including a review of the case law cited in them.
	In due course, an order for Mr Carlyle-Clarke's surrender was signed on 3 July 2002. The solicitors then requested that they be allowed to make further representations, and this was agreed, taking into account all the circumstances. Extensive further representations were received on a number of occasions, and further information was received from the United States before reconsideration of the case could be then completed. On 27 November 2003, the decision to surrender Mr Carlyle-Clarke was confirmed. Subsequently, the case came before the courts once more, and on 26 November 2004, the High Court dismissed Mr Carlyle-Clarke's application for judicial review, rejecting all the arguments that had been advanced on his behalf. Again, fresh representations were placed before the Secretary of State for consideration, but the earlier decisions were upheld on 28 October 2005.
	Another judicial review application was dismissed on 16 June 2006, with the Court ruling that the claimant had got nowhere near establishing a case of a request made in bad faith, and that a challenge on the basis of the passage of time since the commission of the offences did not avail him. An application to the European Court of Human Rights was turned down on 29 June 2006, and hence the extradition took place the following month. I believe that the issues of fairness and proportionality were dealt with in the High Court case on 16 June, and I have explained its ruling.
	This evening, the hon. Gentleman has explained new evidence about the case that he reports has since come to light. As he knows, the UK Government cannot interfere in judicial proceedings in another jurisdiction—and to be fair, I should add that he has not suggested that we should. It is not appropriate for me to comment even if, as in this case, the proceedings have been concluded. However, if he considers it appropriate, he could suggest that his constituent bring any new evidence relating to his involvement in the case to the attention of the relevant authorities in the USA, and seek advice from those who represented him.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot respond this evening to the new evidence that he has brought before the House. He has asked for an apology, but I suggest that if he wishes to pursue the matter he could write to me, perhaps enclosing a copy of the previous debate, of which I am now aware. We have the case file, of course. As I have said, it is impossible for me or the Government to interfere in the judicial proceedings of another country, and I know that he respects that fact.
	As for the implication that the UK Government were either misled or complicit in misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally, I would have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that. I would express to him the view that it is very difficult for me to comment on specific cases—but that is not said with any intention of blocking any request for information. He has done exactly the right thing on behalf of his constituent in bringing the case to the Chamber of this House, so that his constituent can have his case put through his MP. I look forward to his correspondence if he feels that that is the right way forward. I thank him, and I think that it is best if I leave it at that for this evening.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned .